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 » March » 27

MITCHELL CRITERIA AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS

March 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a discussion of the Mitchell criteria in the context of setting aside a default judgment in the case of Mole -v- Hunter [2014]  EWHC 658 QB. (Tugendhat J). THE FACTS Judgment in default had been entered on a…

MITCHELL CASE IN THE NEWS AGAIN: THIS TIME ON NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE

March 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

Despite the costs order upheld by the Court of Appeal the Mitchell libel action continues.   There is a report of a decision today by Tugendhat in relation to an application for disclosure [2014]  EWHC 879 (QB).  It concerned an…

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

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT WITNESS SUMMARIES
  • EXPERT WATCH 80: WHEN EXPERTS ARE ON THE METER: ONE EXPERT WAS NOT ALWAYS INDEPENDENT, THE OTHER DID NOT APPRECIATE HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
  • PERMISSION TO RELY ON A WITNESS SUMMARY: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO SHOW THE WITNESS HAS REFUSED TO GIVE A STATEMENT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OH, AND THAT WITNESS FORMERLY KNOWN AS “PRINCE”)
  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

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