One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
- MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
Top Posts
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
- JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
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
While it will probably be superseded by this week’s events in the Court of Appeal, this will be an interesting judgment when the transcript is available. The judge declined to follow a previous decision of Master Rowley – Long v Value Properties – which has also been blogged about here. The judge went rather further than that the Lawtel summary suggests in saying that solicitors have a duty to cooperate. While the judge made a no personal criticism of the respondents’ solicitor, he did in effect say that prejudice had been deliberately contrived by that solicitor not taking any step to alert the applicant to its oversight. This did have a bearing on his decision to grant relief.