Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2015 » May » 19

FAILURE TO COMPLETE PRE-TRIAL REVIEW QUESTIONNAIRE FULLY LEADS TO DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM BEING STRUCK OUT

May 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Waterman Transport Ltd -v- Torchwood Properties Ltd [2015] EWHC 1446 (TCC) Mr Justice Akenhead entered judgment for a claimant and struck out a counterclaim after the defendant failed to file a completed pre-trial review questionnaire properly. THE CASE The…

I DIDN'T MEAN IT WHEN I SIGNED THE JOINT REPORT: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN EXPERTS CHANGE THEIR MINDS?

May 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt in Iraqi Civilians -v- Ministry of Defence [2015] EWHC 1254 (QB) contains some interesting passages in relation to an expert reneging from the contents of a joint report. In particular what is the appropriate…

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

  • 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
  • DAMAGES IN ANTICIPATION OF DEATH AND LOSSES PRIOR TO DEATH 2026: WEBINAR 2nd JULY 2026
  • WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 1: COSTS ADVICE ON DISCONTINUANCE
  • THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
  • EXPERT WATCH 53 (THAT CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE AGAIN): THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERTS MADE MISTAKES AND THEN “GAVE AN IMPRESSION OF LOFTINESS” : THE JUDGE FELT UNABLE TO RELY ON THEIR CONCLUSIONS

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)
ASKING THE JUDGE QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED: THEY HAVE TO BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE PARTIES TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF THE DECISION (AND THESE GO TOO FAR...)
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (3): THE DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (1): THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A "MINI TRIAL"

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