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 » October » 21

EVIDENCE: PROVING DAMAGES AND INTEREST ON DAMAGES: YOU CAN'T SUGAR THE PILL AND HAVE TO PROVE THE LOSS

October 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Written advocacy

The final paragraphs of the judgment of Mr Justice Eder in Sugar Hut Group -v- AJ Insurance [2014] EWHC  3352 (Comm) has some important lessons on the need to adduce evidence to prove losses. It also contains a discussion of…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURE TO GIVE NOTIFICATION OF CFA & ATE

October 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Caliendo -v- Mischon De Reya [2014] EWHC 3414 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard considered an application for relief from sanctions under the post-Denton regime.  He also made interesting observations in relation to applications in relation to considering the relevance of…

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

  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…
  • THE TCC GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A DETAILED EXAMINATION
  • NEW (4th) EDITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT GUIDE 2026: A QUICK GUIDE TO THE CHANGES AND THE NEW PARTS
  • AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CORONER’S COURT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS 2026: WEBINAR 17th JULY 2026

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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