Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2014 » October » Page 2

A PARTY UNREASONABLY REFUSES TO MEDIATE BUT RECOVERS ALL ITS COSTS: WHY NORTHGROP GRUMMAN (2) IS ESSENTIAL READING

October 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The question of costs liability following an “unreasonable” failure to mediate remain a developing area of law. This is an area with profound practical implications for litigators and their clients. That is why the decision of Mr Justice Ramsey in…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: RESPONDENT'S "OPPORTUNISTIC" BEHAVIOUR CONDEMNED

October 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Long -v- Value Properties [2014] EWHC 2981 (Ch) Mr Justice Barling roundly condemned the defendants for taking opportunistic points in litigation. The judge overturned a decision by the Master refusing relief from sanctions. THE FACTS This was an application…

CALDERBANK OFFER HAD NO EFFECT ON OUTCOME IN RELATION TO COSTS:

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Damages, Members Content

Some parties make “Calderbank” offers in place of Part 36 offers. The effect of a Calderbank offer and whether it should affect an order for costs was considered by the Court of Appeal today in Coward -v- Phaesetos [2014] EWCA…

PLEADING AND PROVING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DISHONESTY: MULLARKE -v- BROAD: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Written advocacy

Great care needs to be taken in pleading allegations of fraud or dishonesty.  In particular the pleader needs to be sure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the pleading.  This was considered in some detail by Lewison J in…

NO INDEMNITY COSTS: GORGEOUS BEAUTY 2

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

We looked at the Gorgeous Beauty case earlier in the context of witness evidence. I am grateful to Jon Lord for bringing my attention to the subsequent decision on costs.  The judge declined to order indemnity costs and awarded the…

INVOLUNTARY BAILMENT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: CAMPBELL -v- REDSTONE CONSIDERED

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Liability, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The law as to bailment sometimes raises its head in civil procedure. It is relevant for instance when someone damages a car which is borrowed. It is more significant in relation to the duties owed in relation to goods left…

MORE ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY: McIntyre & HENNESSY -v- THE HOME OFFICE

October 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

We have looked at issues of witness credibility many times before. It is often the key issue when a matter reaches trial. A graphic example of credibility issues can be found in the judgment of Mr Justice Mostyn in McIntyre…

← Previous 1 2

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT
  • THE JOINT EXPERT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS: WEBINAR 1ST OCTOBER 2025: WITH SOME IMPORTANT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED
  • PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A “BLIND EYE” ENOUGH?
  • MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA “HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE”)
  • WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN “ISSUED” ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT’S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 1: THE PENALTIES FOR NON-QUALIFIED STAFF CONDUCTING LITIGATION (AKA "HOW MUCH TIME COULD I SERVE")
  • PROVING THINGS 269: PROVING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: IS TURNING A "BLIND EYE" ENOUGH?
  • EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT "PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY" BY THE COURT
  • THE JOINT EXPERT AND THE MEETING OF EXPERTS: WEBINAR 1ST OCTOBER 2025: WITH SOME IMPORTANT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED
  • THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF... WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop