Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Zenith Chambers, Leeds, & Hardwicke, London
Browse: Home » 2019 » February » 04
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29:  EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE'S TERRITORY DON'T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 29: EXPERTS AND FACTS: EXPERTS WHO VENTURE ONTO THE JUDGE’S TERRITORY DON’T USUALLY FARE TOO WELL

February 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

We have seen several cases recently where judges have objected, in clear terms, to an expert trying to find “facts”. That is properly a matter for the trial judge.   It is worthwhile looking at the guidance and cases on this…

LITIGATORS AND THE ART OF PERSUASION: USEFUL GUIDES (1): MUNKMAN ON THE TECHNIQUE OF ADVOCACY

February 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements, Written advocacy

Every litigator is, involved in the art of persuasion.  Litigation is fundamentally about the art of persuasion.  Persuasion is a litigator’s daily task: in correspondence, on the phone,  with opponents. It is wrong to confine the consideration of this essential skill…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2019. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Legal Futures Civil Litigation Conference, 2019

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 15,240 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS
  • EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
  • DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE
  • “IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE, THIS IS IT”
  • WHEN LITIGATION BECOMES A “VERBAL BRAWL”: DISCLOSURE MUST BE PROPORTIONATE

Top Posts & Pages

  • EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF
  • DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE
  • COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS
  • "IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE, THIS IS IT"
  • DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: "4 GOLDEN RULES" DIRECTLY FROM THE JUDGES WHO HEAR THE CASES

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death
  • Personal Injury Litigation
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 3rd edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Justice- Standard Order for Directions
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org
  • Zenith Chambers
  • Zenith Personal Injury Blog

Archives

Copyright © 2019 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin