4 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- COST BITES 342: THE CLAIMANTS’ HYPERBOLIC APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT COST THEM DEARLY: PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR £132,400 FOLLOWING THEIR CHALLENGE OF A BILL OF £147,436.33
- WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS A SOLICITOR’S FIRM AND THE PROGRESS OF THE CLAIM “HINDERED BY A SERIES OF PROCEDURAL BREACHES”: NOT A GREAT START TO THE ASE
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026
- RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS DENIED AFTER A PATTERN OF DEFAULT DELAY AND EXCUSES: TO BREACH ONE UNLESS ORDER MAY BE REGARDED AS MISFORTUNE, TO BREACH TWO LOOKS LIKE …
- COURT SETS ASIDE A DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT HAD BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: THE ORDER WAS NOT DRAFTED “IN THE CLEAREST AND MOST PRECISE LANGUAGE” NECESSARY
Top Posts
- THE PARTIES SHOULD DRAFT ORDERS IN THE TERMS STATED BY THE JUDGE: THE DRAFTING SHOULD NOT BE LITIGIOUS BUT TRANSACTIONAL
- COST BITES 342: THE CLAIMANTS' HYPERBOLIC APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT COST THEM DEARLY: PERSONAL LIABILITY FOR £132,400 FOLLOWING THEIR CHALLENGE OF A BILL OF £147,436.33
- THE CLAIMANTS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: COURT REFUSES AN EXTENSION: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE: OUT OF TIME MEANS OUT OF COURT...
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE "THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED"
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY ii: WHY A JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS' WITNESS: SOME REPLIES WERE "ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS VERBIAGE DESIGNED TO FOB OFF QUESTIONS" HE "PREFERRED NOT TO ANSWER"
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
This was brilliant – it took me back to the days of the late and much-lamented Lord Denning. I just wish that some of our judges could be persuaded to give judgments in such readable form.
Thank you for brightening up my Thursday morning.
Like Michael above, I just emailed a link to this around my litigation department with the title ‘The Canuck Lord Denning’. “Fridriksson has taken everyone on a hideously time-consuming and obscenely expensive journey down his private yellow brick road to the outskirts of the Emerald City where, it appears, he has a residence” is like something out of Mean Girls. Utter genius.
This should be mandatory reading for all litigators!
Fridriksson’s only competition came from Galloway, in Sky v. EDS in the Technology and Construction Court in England. The judge was more serious about it but his persistent lies gave rise to no little mirth.