Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2014 » January » 16

MITCHELL CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME: ANOTHER TWIST IN THE THEVARAJAH TALE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the case heard today of Thevarajah –v- Riordan [2014] EWCA Civ 15the Court of Appeal reiterated the rigorous nature of the Mitchell test.  Here we look at that decision in detail and the trenchant observations made by the Court….

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE CHOICE OF JUDGE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of Mitchell featured in the decision of Mr Justice Turner in Biljani -v- Unum Ltd[2014] EWHC 27 (QB) .  An application for the matter to be listed in front of a High Court judge was refused, part of the…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

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
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop