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 » February » 19

FREEZING ORDERS AND THE DUTIES OWED ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT CAN BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE

February 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

 COOKE -v- VENULUM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD [2013] EWHC 4288 Freezing orders are part of the “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation. As such they should be approached with extreme care.  This case illustrates the dangers involved when a party seeks a…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: DID THE COURT OF APPEAL TURN A BLIND EYE TO MITCHELL? NELSON -v- CIRCLE CONSIDERED

February 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It is unusual to see the Court of Appeal granting relief from sanctions without reference to CPR 3.9 or the decision in Mitchell. That is precisely what happened in Nelson –v- Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 440: WHY INDEMNITY COSTS WERE ORDERED A LOOK AT THE CLAIMANTS’ PLEADED CASE: FIRSTLY IT WAS PLEADED TOO WIDELY, SECONDLY THERE WERE THEN ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE CASE OUTSIDE THE PLEADINGS
  • CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS COMING UP LATER THIS YEAR: A NEW DISCOUNT CODE
  • COST BITES 439 : IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COSTS BUDGET A REASON NOT TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS ?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE RELEVANCE OF THE CLIENTS BEING SOLELY AT FAULT: SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES TO TACKLE
  • COST BITES 438 : CLAIMANT’S UNTENABLE ARGUMENTS LEADS TO REDUCTION IN COSTS RECOVERED: HOURLY RATES FAR TOO HIGH, EVEN WHEN THE CLAIM WAS “ONLY” FOR £9 MILLION

Top Posts

EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY "WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT" TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...
ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCUSSION (ABOUT INTEREST...): THE STARTING POINT IS THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BEING OUT OF ITS MONEY (NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT...)
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: RED FLAGS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS (1): THE WITNESS THAT GIVES THE COURT THEIR OPINION

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