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 » May » 01

THE APPROPRIATE FEE FOR PART 8 APPLICATIONS: CLARIFICATION AT LAST

May 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In a post in February “Civil Procedure and the Secret State” complaints were made of a “secret” policy introduced by the courts of changes to a demand that Part 7 proceedings be issued instead of Part 8 proceedings and that higher…

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 417: THE LIABILITY FOR COSTS OF EACH CLAIMANT WHEN A MULTI-CLAIMANT ACTION WAS DISCONTINUED: BEING PART OF SUCH AN ACTION MAY NOT BE CHEAP…
  • EXPERT WATCH 63: WHEN A DOCTOR WRITES TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE FINDS THE INFORMATION “UNRELIABLE”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “UNNECESSARY MATERIAL, DUPLICATION AND INFORMATION OVERLOAD”: A POST FROM JULY 2016 WHICH STILL HAS ECHOES TODAY
  • EXPERT WATCH 62: ANOTHER CASE WHERE THE EXPERT DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE “BOLAM” TEST: PLUS THE DANGERS OF INSTRUCTING AN EXPERT BY A “PORTAL”
  • A BOOK ABOUT SERVICE (AT LONG LAST): WHAT IS MORE IT IS IMPRESSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE AND FILLS A GAP IN THE MARKET (AND, THIS BLOG’S PART IN ITS CREATION)

Top Posts

WHAT SHOULD A SOLICITOR DO IF A CLIENT IS PUTTING FORWARD AN ACCOUNT THAT MAY BE UNTRUE AND THEN THERE ARE "RED FLAGS"? WHEN IS THE LINE CROSSED: THE DUTIES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
"STING OPERATIONS", SECRET AGENTS, NAIVE SOLICITORS DISCLOSING THEIR CLIENT'S PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, STRIKING OUT AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION HIGHLIGHTS THE MAJOR RISKS OF "PRIVILEGE HUNTING"
THE RULES ARE CHANGING: ADVANCE NOTICE: GOODBYE TO THE CHANCERY DIVISION
CAN THE WAY IN WHICH A CLAIMANT HAS CONDUCTED A CASE MEAN THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT: "CLEAN HANDS" AND OTHER EQUITABLE MAXIMS CONSIDERED
EXPERT WATCH 59: THE JUDGE IS CONCERNED THAT THE EXPERTS' SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WERE NOT FULLY DISCLOSED: THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES...

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