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 » August » 01

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER FOR E-DISCLOSURE: DECISION THAT A PARTY HAD COMPLIED OVERTURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Striking out

The first instance decision in  Smailes -v- McNally (Re Atrium Training Service) [2013] EWHC 2882 (Ch) was looked at in detail in a previous post in October last year.  It is worth noting that the Court of Appeal have overturned the…

PROPORTIONATE PENALTY FOR BREACH OF DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS: THE AMERICAN APPROACH: MAKE A VIDEO

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

One of the comments in Denton was that a “strict” construction of Mitchell led to disproportionate results.  A judgment reported this week in Above the Law provides an example of how a judge can attempt to remedy continuous defaults. THE ISSUE:…

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

  • 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
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION AN 8 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE (AUGUST 2019): AND LOOK AT THE LINKS…
  • EXPERT WATCH 66: RED FLAGS AND EXPERTS (1) :THE DUTY TO CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPINIONS: OFTEN “HONOURED IN THE BREACH”; OFTEN FATAL TO A PARTY’S CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY “WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT” TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG

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
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
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...

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