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 » November » Page 2

MORE ON EXPERTS: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES TAINTS THE EVIDENCE BADLY

November 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

We  have already looked at one of the observations on experts by HH Simon Barker QC in Bacciotinni & Cook -v- Gotelle & Goldsmith [2014] EWHC  3257 Ch. There we looked at “over eager” experts. The judge also had something to…

WHICH WITNESS IS GOING TO BE BELIEVED? A HIGH COURT DECISION ASSESSING THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES

November 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

It is essential that litigators have a keen understanding of how witness evidence is likely to be assessed at trial.  Many trials take place precisely because there is a conflict of evidence between the witnesses.  An example of a close…

OVER EAGER EXPERTS JUST DO NOT HELP: THEY HINDER AND HARM THE CASES OF THOSE WHO CALL THEM

November 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Liability, Members Content

Several preliminary remarks of  HH Simon Barker QC in Bacciotinni & Cook -v- Gotelle & Goldsmith [2014] EWHC  3257 Ch underline the dangers of an “over eager” expert witness making comments which undermine their own evidence and taint the case…

"IN TIME" APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM REFUSED: A DANGER AREA TO WATCH

November 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Frontier Estates -v- Berwin Leighton Paisner (Ch D 30/10/2014)* John Male QC upheld a decision not to grant an extension of time for service of the particular of claim. What makes this case important is that the application was…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CAN BE HEARD WITHOUT A FORMAL APPLICATION: CUTLER -V- BARNET

November 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Cutler -v- Barnet (QBD 31/10/14)* Supperstone J held that an application for relief from sanctions could be heard even if it were not made formally in writing. THE CASE The defendant was resisting a claim for possession. She had…

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF 20 YEARS AGO: WHAT WAS IN THE NEWS AND WHAT CAN WE LEARN FROM IT?

November 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

Whilst blogs have not been around 20 years* Civil Litigation Brief has. Twenty years ago it was a monthly column in the Solicitors Journal (monthly now seems a leisurely timetable). It is interesting to see what was making the news…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: DENTON MADE NO DIFFERENCE

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Blemain Finance Ltd -v- Mukhtar &  Osman (28/10/14)* Globe J upheld a decision of the first instance judge refusing relief from sanctions. THE FACTS The claimant sought possession of the defendants’ home following a failure to pay. There was…

CASE NOT STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO FILE TRIAL BUNDLE & PAY COURT FEES

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the most read posts on this blog was, in the middle of the Mitchell Madness period, when a judge struck out an action because the trial bundle had been lodged late.  This issue was considered by Hickinbottom J…

LIMITATION & THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF HEARING LOSS

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Platt -v- BRB Residuary Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1401 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the date of knowledge in the context of a claim for hearing loss. THE LAW The relevant sections of the 1980 Act…

MITCHELL: THE CASE THAT KEEPS ON GIVING: EXPERT EVIDENCE; SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE AND THE EDITING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS

November 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Regular readers of this blog will need no introduction to the procedural issues that Mitchell -v- News Group Newspapers Ltd has given rise to already.  Procedural issues have arisen again and were considered by Mr Justice Warby (2014 EWHC 3590…

← 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY 2: A CHECKLIST FOR THOSE CALLED UP TO PREPARE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN A “FAREPAK” TYPE SCENARIO
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE CASE WHERE THE GOVERNMENT’S WITNESS EVIDENCE WAS SO BAD THAT IT WITHDREW THE CASE BEFORE THE RESPONDENTS GAVE EVIDENCE: WHY THE PRINCIPLES RELATING TO WITNESS EVIDENCE NEED TO BE UNDERSTOOD
  • WHERE THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU 3): ADVISING A CLIENT THAT IF THEY DISCONTINUE THEN THEY CAN’T COME BACK
  • 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

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"
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
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
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 84 : DEFENCE STRUCK OUT "THE SMALL PARTS OF THE PLEADINGS THAT DO ADDRESS THE CLAIMANT'S CARE ARE LIKE TINY ISLANDS LOST IN A VAST OCEAN OF IRRELEVANCE"

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