Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022.
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.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Recent Posts
- CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
- PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
- PART 36: CONDUCT & REDUCTION OF CLAIMANT’S COSTS: A SETTLEMENT STRATEGY THAT WAS “COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC”
- EXPERTS: A PARTY CANNOT INSIST THAT A SINGLE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BE MALE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
- WHEN YOU DON’T CALL THE OTHER SIDE’S EXPERTS TO COURT, BUT WANT TO CHALLENGE THEIR CONCLUSIONS: ANOTHER CASE
Top Posts & Pages
- CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ON DEPUTYSHIP AND COURT OF PROTECTION COSTS: SUCCESSFUL APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
- PART 36: CONDUCT & REDUCTION OF CLAIMANT'S COSTS: A SETTLEMENT STRATEGY THAT WAS "COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC"
- PROVING THINGS 243: ITS WITNESSES THAT COUNT IN FINDING PRIMARY FACTS, NOT EXPERTS
- WHEN YOU DON'T CALL THE OTHER SIDE'S EXPERTS TO COURT, BUT WANT TO CHALLENGE THEIR CONCLUSIONS: ANOTHER CASE
- EXPERTS: A PARTY CANNOT INSIST THAT A SINGLE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT BE MALE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Archives
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy