Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2015 » February » 24

MORE ON BUNDLES: THERE IS MUCH TIME & MONEY TO BE SAVED YET

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Written advocacy

I have often commented (and been surprised) by the fact that a post on preparing trial bundles is always the most popular page on this blog.  Following a prompt from Dominic Regan it was interesting to watch the live feed…

INADEQUATE WITNESS STATEMENTS LEAD TO CASE BEING STRUCK OUT AT TRIAL

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Disclosure, Statements of Case, Witness statements

We have looked at the case of  Devon & Cornwall Autistic Community Trust -v- Cornwall Council before.  In the first report Mr Justice Green refused an application to adjourn a trial date but gave permission to serve witness evidence late….

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT NOT RECOVERING ALL OF ITS COSTS (AND OF THE ADVANTAGES OF A PART 36 OFFER)

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Risks of litigation

In Altus Group (UK) Limited -v- Baker Tilly [2015] EWHC 411 (Ch) HH Judge Keyser QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) made various orders in relation to the Defendant’s costs.  The Defendant did not recover all their costs of…

UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST GRANT OF RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: HOME GROUP LIMITED -v- MATREJEK

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Written advocacy

There may be a few appeals pending where a party is arguing that relief from sanctions should be granted on the grounds of the Denton criteria which “modified” the Mitchell test.  The unusual aspect of the decision in Home Group…

DECIDING CASES ON PAPER: WOODLANDS, EVIDENCE & DECIDING CASES "ONLINE"

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The decision in Woodland -v- Maxwell looked at in an earlier blog is interesting because it is one of the rare cases where the Court of Appeal carried out a (brief) analysis of the evidence in the case more than…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26,221 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES – OR ELSE
  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • “THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE”: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE’S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED

Top Posts & Pages

  • WITNESS DEMEANOUR: ARGUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL
  • IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?
  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE RULES LEADS TO PARTS OF A CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENT BEING STRUCK OUT: COMPLY WITH THE RULES - OR ELSE
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: THINKING ABOUT DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FROM THE OUTSET: WEBINAR 20th JULY 2022
  • "THE LADD -V- MARSHALL CRITERIA ARE CUMULATIVE": RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED BUT APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE REFUSED: APPEAL ON JUDGE'S FINDINGS OF FACT FAILED

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 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin