One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.4K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- WEBINAR ON PD57AC WITNESS STATEMENTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”: IF YOU MISSED IT YOU CAN STILL WATCH IT…
- EXPERT WATCH 46: GUIDANCE AS TO THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS IN THE COURT OF PROTECTION: (BUT SOMETHING FOR ALL OF US TO TAKE AWAY…)
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: “I WROTE LOTS OF UNEDIFYING, AGGRESSIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE LETTERS: LOOK WHERE IT GOT ME” (MAY 2016)
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS: HOW DOES THE JUDGE KNOW IT IS THE WITNESS’S OWN WORDS?
- FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: A TALE OF THREE CITIES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LATE BUT THE SOLICITORS “DID NOTHING WRONG AT ALL”
Top Posts
- ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE PREPARATION OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: THERE IS NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THIS: HOW DOES THE JUDGE KNOW IT IS THE WITNESS'S OWN WORDS?
- SERVICE POINTS 38: THE CLAIMANT SERVES AT THE WRONG ADDRESS BUT THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO APPLY IN TIME (A CLASSIC STORY)
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 68: COURT OF APPEAL HOLDS THAT THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE ALLOWED AMENDMENTS: THE PLEADINGS WERE "INCOHERENT, SELF-CONTRADICTORY AND INSUFFICIENTLY PARTICULARISED"
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: "I WROTE LOTS OF UNEDIFYING, AGGRESSIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE LETTERS: LOOK WHERE IT GOT ME" (MAY 2016)
- FILING A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: A TALE OF THREE CITIES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN THE APPEAL WAS LATE BUT THE SOLICITORS "DID NOTHING WRONG AT ALL"
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026.
Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
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
In my view, an inconsistent application of the Jackson principles is worse than a strict interpretation. In other courts, this would have been grounds for a strike out, not a final extension of 14 days. Clients are buoyed up by the “good” decisions and it can be hard to explain why they may not succeed on their claim/defence. Unfortunately this uncertainty will not be resolved until the Court of Appeal has seen and ruled on Jackson more than once (Mitchell v MGN is not going to be enough).