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 » 2015 » July

THE CHIPS ARE DOWN FOR EXPERT WHO FAILED TO DECLARE AN INTEREST

July 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd -v- Al Geabury [2015] EWHC 2294(QB) Mrs Justice Simler DBE was critical of an expert who failed to declare an interest in a case. The expert had become a treating doctor. “It was no…

THAT "PARTIAL" ADMISSION: IT IS STILL BINDING AND YOU MAY NOT BE ALLOWED TO RESILE FROM IT

July 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

The judgment of Mr Justice William Davis in Cavell -v- Transport for London [2015] EWCA 2283 (QB) has some important observations in relation to admissions and attempts to resile from admissions. “It cannot be in those interests to permit the…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 3: THE COURT OF APPEAL AND ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDERS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

This is the third case today about the issue of costs and the conduct of proceedings. It is the most  complex, Smith & Nephew plc -v- ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 803. THE CASE The Court of Appeal allowed…

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AGAINST "EXPERT WITNESSES" ARE NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision of the Divisional Court in Accident Exchange Ltd -v- Nathan John George-Broom & Ors [2015] EWHC 2205 (Admin) is certainly a development in the practice relating to dismissal. THE CASE The claimants applied to commit a number of…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 2: LOSER PAYS ALL APPLIES: MOORE IS NOT LESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In The London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- The London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) Mr Justice Norris refused an application for an issue based order and made an order for costs under the general rule that the…

COSTS & CONDUCT 1: MULTIPLE PARTIES, "BULLOCK" AND "SANDERSON" ORDERS AND INDEMNITY COSTS TO THE DEFENDANTS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There are several cases today where the courts have considered the issue of where costs should fall and how judicial discretion should be exercised.  The first we consider is Asghar -v- Ahmad [2015] EWHC 2234 (QB) a decision of Mr…

OUCH! THINKING OF DRAFTING A COSTS BUDGET? BEST READ THIS FIRST

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in GSK Project Management Ltd -v- QPR Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 2274 (TCC) is one that needs to read by anyone involved in preparing a costs budget. To say the judge was critical of…

THE PRIMACY OF ORAL TESTIMONY: ABSENT WITNESSES ORDERED TO ATTEND AND LATE AMENDMENTS REFUSED: ALL IN ONE CASE

July 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There is an interesting report of two separate decisions of Mr Justice Peter Smith in Harb -v- HRH Price Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz [2015] EWHC 2195 (Ch). This relates to two decisions made on the first day…

IF YOU ENTER INTO A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CLIENT ARE YOU PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE?

July 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Master Campbell in Addleshaw Goddard LLP  -v- Wood & Hellard [2015] EWHC B12 (Costs) has some interesting observations on contentious business agreements and the nature of litigation financing generally. THE CASE The claimant solicitors had entered into…

ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE CENTRAL BANK OF ECUADOR CASE REVISITED: THE OCEAN FROST APPROACH

July 27, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

I have already posted an article on the Privy Council decision in Central Bank of Ecuador -v- Conticort CA [2015] UKPC 11. It was a remarkable case in that the Privy Council overturned findings of fact of the trial judge. In…

NEW RULES RELATING TO "NEUTRAL EVALUATION" ; LITIGANTS IN PERSON; ASSESSMENT; SPECIALIST FINANCIAL LIST (AND MORE…)

July 27, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

New rules have been introduced which (for the most part) come into force on the 1st October 2015.  Here we look at the key changes. THE RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2014 were laid before Parliament on the…

THIS "PROBLEM" WITH WITNESSES: IT IS NOT A ONE WAY STREET: DEFENDANT'S EVIDENCE NOT BELIEVED

July 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Much attention is, rightly, paid to the actions of evidence of claimants who bring fraudulent claims or give untrue evidence. However it is important to remember that this issue with evidence is not a one way street.  There are plenty…

ADVISING ON THE "RISKS OF LITIGATION": A HIGH COURT DECISION

July 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Liability, Members Content

In Thomas -v- Albutt [2015] EWHC Mr Justice Morgan considered, among other things, the duty owed by a barrister (and lawyers generally) to warn about the risks of litigation. “Clients, I know, want two inconsistent things. They want confident advice…

POST MITCHELL PRE-DENTON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPEAL: MITCHELL PRINCIPLES WERE NOT HERE TO STAY

July 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The appeal in Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd -v- Sinclair [2015] EWCA Civ 774 involves the Court of Appeal considering the Mitchell/Denton divide. KEY POINTS The Court overturned a decision, made post-Mitchell but prior to Denton, where a judge refused…

THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS OF QOCS: IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING DECISION: THE MEANING OF "PROCEEDINGS"

July 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

There is an interesting decision on checkmylegalfees.com website in relation to the transitional provisions of the QOCS regulations.  The full transcript of Casseldine -v- The Diocese of Llandaff Board for Social Responsibility (Regional Costs Judge Phillips, Cardiff County Court 15th…

THINKING OF ALLEGING OR PLEADING FRAUD: BETTER READ THIS FIRST

July 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In NGM Sustainable Developments Ltd -v- Wallis [2015] EWHC 2089 (Ch) Mr Justice Peter Smith highlighted the importance of full and accurate pleading of a case alleging fraud. “…in commercial matters the parties and their lawyers tend to work long…

STRIKING OUT WITNESS STATEMENTS BECAUSE OF IRRELEVANT MATERIAL AND "SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS" IN RELATION TO CHANGES OF COSTS BUDGETS

July 22, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Witness statements

The Mitchell libel case led to a number of interlocutory hearings and applications, some of which had a profound effect on civil procedure (for a while at least). The case of Yeo -v- Times Newspapers Ltd  is also leading to…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY: KEY POINTS AND LINKS

July 22, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The decision in Coventry -v- Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50 has not led to any major change in practice and procedure (in relation to a costs regime that had already ended anyway). A link to the judgment is here  KEY POINTS…

JUSTICE COMMITTEE INQUIRY IN THE EFFECTS OF THE INCREASE IN COURT FEES: HOW TO RESPOND

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

The Justice Committee is holding an inquiry into the effects of the introduction and levels of the increased court fees. If anyone wants to send their responses to this blog, in addition to the inquiry, I will arrange a specific…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM – FURTHER PROBLEMS: YOU CANNOT ALWAYS RELY ON WHAT YOU ARE TOLD

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Service of the claim form is an issue that continues to cause problems.  There is a brief report on Lawtel today of the decision of Stewart J in Dzekova -v- Thomas Eggar PPL (QBD 17/07/2015)*.  It is another example of…

ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: A MATTER OF RISKS AND REWARDS

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In The Queen on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authorts -v- the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 2401 (Admin) Mr Justice Green made an issue based costs order. THE CASE The…

SETTING ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE IN A QOCS CASE: TWO INTERESTING DECISIONS

July 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Rebecca Jones of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me details of an important decision in relation to setting aside a notice of discontinuance served by a claimant in a costs case. The note of the judgment below…

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: COMMENTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: THE SIGNATORY CANNOT HIDE BEHIND THE DRAFTSMAN

July 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The signing of a statement of truth is now an everyday event in litigation. With documents signed by clients, or by lawyers on behalf of their clients. Recent cases highlight the significance of the statement of truth. It is important…

IS A FALSE AFFIDAVIT WORSE THAN A FALSE WITNESS STATEMENT? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE POINT

July 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In International Sports Tours -v- Shorey [2015] EWHC 2040 (QB) Mr Justice Green considered some interesting issues relating to committal for contempt, witness statements and affidavits. THE ACTION The claimant brought an action against a former employee and others claiming breach…

OVERTURNING FINDING OF FACTS ON APPEAL: FINDINGS OF ABSENCE OF DISHONESTY OVERTURNED BY THE PRIVY COUNCIL

July 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of the Privy Council in Central Bank of Ecuador and others v Conticorp SA and others [2015] UKPC 11;  [2015] WLR (D)  150 is quite extraordinary. It involved the Privy Council overturning a finding of  fact of the judge at first instance that…

RECONSTRUCTION AND RECOLLECTION: HONEST WITNESSES GET THINGS WRONG: WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED

July 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The case of Wright -v- Lewis Silkin LLP [2015] EWHC 1897 (QB) has been widely reported. Some report it as a case where a solicitor’s evidence was not believed. This is grossly unfair. This case is another example of the…

SOLICITORS ARE ENTITLED TO ARGUE THEY SHOULD BE PAID AND ARE NOT LITIGANTS IN PERSON: A HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

July 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In EMW Law LLP -v- Halborg [2015] EWHC 2005 (Ch) His Honour Judge Purle QC considered some important elements in relation to the ability of solicitors to recover their costs. The judge also found that solicitors are not “litigants in person”…

HIGHWAYMEN, EVIDENCE AND DAMAGES ALL ON THE MENU.

July 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

There are some interesting observations in the judgment of Mr Recorder Acton David QC in Luffeorm Limited -v- Kitsons LLP [2015] EWHC B10(QB).  This illustrates some important issues in relation to evidence and the need to prove damages. “The Highwayman’s…

EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH CONSENT ORDER: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

July 12, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Safin (Fursecroft) Limited -v- The Estate of Dr Said Ahmed Said Badrig (deceased) [2015] EWCA Civ 739 the Court of Appeal considered the principles relating to extensions of time of a consent order. KEY POINTS The Court has the…

RETROSPECTIVE CCFA WAS VALID (BUT ONLY JUST): CFAS "AWASH IN A SEA OF ILLEGALITY":THE NEED FOR COMPLIANCE

July 10, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Pentecost -v- John [2015] EWHC 1970 (QB) Turner J (sitting with Master Leonard as an assessor) held that a retrospective Collective Conditional Fee Agreement was valid between the client and their solicitors, thus valid for the purpose of enforcing…

APPEALS ON ISSUES OF FACT: SPECULATION AND "OPINION" EVIDENCE FROM WITNESSES IS TO NO AVAIL

July 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Macleod -v- the Commission of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 688 the Court of Appeal set out the criteria for appealing findings of fact. Further the case highlights the important distinction between what witnesses saw and what…

MAKING A FINDING OF FRAUD WITHOUT EVIDENCE 3: THE COURTS ARE NOT EASILY AFFRONTED

July 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

For the third time in a fortnight the courts have sent out a clear message of the dangers of  judges making findings of fraud without having all the evidence to hand. THE CASE In Alpha Rocks Solicitors -v- Alade [2015]…

MORE ON BUNDLES: JACKSON ON THE BUNDLE AS AN OBSTACLE COURSE

July 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

In a judgment today Jackson L.J. made some trenchant remarks about the quality of the appeal bundle. It illustrates the importance of reading (and complying) with the relevant rules and practice directions. “The appeal bundle should be an aid to…

LITIGATION RISKS AND MITIGATION OF LOSS: "MEDIATION IS A JUDGMENT CALL": WHEN IS A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE REASONABLE?

July 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Damages, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

The issue of whether a failure to mediate represented a failure to mitigate loss was considered by Judge Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Orientfield Holdings Ltd -v- Bird & Bird [2015] EWHC 1963 (Ch). “Having embarked…

JUDGES AND WITNESSES 4: THE LITIGANT IN PERSON AND THE ABSENT WITNESS

July 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Otou -v- Brierley [2015] EWHC 1938 (Ch) Edward Murray (sitting as s Deputy Judge of the Chancery Division) was in an unusual situation. A witness statement drafted by a litigant in person contrasted to a witness statement by a…

JUDGES AND WITNESSES 3: "UNCHALLENGED" EVIDENCE AND CREDIBILITY

July 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Various Claimants -v- Giambrone [2015] EWHC 1946 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett looked at issues relating to the credibility of witnesses where it was alleged that their evidence had not been “challenged” in certain respects. “…the days of the “I…

JUDGES AND WITNESSES 2: POISE AND POLISH IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE

July 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

This is the second post today on the issue of how judges assess witnesses. In Mudroglu -v- Reddish LLP [2015] EWHC 1044 (Ch) His Honour Judge Keyser QC had to consider issues relating to the credibility of two witnesses. THE…

JUDGES AND WITNESSES 1: IT WAS A LONG TIME AGO

July 8, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There have been a number of cases recently where the courts have considered, expressly, how they should approach witness evidence.  The first,  Axa -v- Arab Insurance Group [2015] EWHC 1939 (Comm) related to witnesses who had to consider matters after…

THE NEW UNINSURED DRIVERS' MIB AGREEMENT: COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1st AUGUST 2015

July 7, 2015 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

For those with Motor Insurers Bureau claims a new Uninsured Driver Drivers agreement comes into force on the 1st August 2015.  Here we look at the major changes. THE KEY POINT The rules are now much simpler. The key points…

MORE ON WITNESS CREDIBILITY: THE DOG THAT OBTAINED A MBA (WITH BETTER GRADES THAN THE WITNESS)

July 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The post on the Canadian case of The Hearing Clinic (Niagara Falls)  -v- Ontario 2014 ONAC 5831  attracted a lot of views and a lot of comments.  I am grateful to Chris Rees  for pointing out the judgment of Mr…

COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS; IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS; SET OFF & POTENTIAL INSOLVENCY: A HIGH COURT DECISION

July 3, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA -v- ITG [2015] EWHC 1924 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered issues relating to indemnity costs and whether assessment of costs ordered on an interlocutory hearing should take place forthwith. KEY POINTS Although the conduct…

A TRIAL WITHOUT WITNESSES: THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: DUNNAGE -v- RANDALL

July 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Liability, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Dunnage -v- Randall [2015] EWCA Civ 673 is one of those seminal cases that every tort law student will have to read.  Here we look at the case and the procedure. In particular…

ELECTRONIC SIGNATURE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: IS IT VALID? A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

July 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The question of whether a witness statement can be signed electronically is often described as an “open” issue. It was considered by District Judge Jenkinson in Fitzpatrick -v- AIG Europe Ltd (Liverpool County Court 1st July 2015*). THE CASE The…

THE PROFOUND LACK OF WISDOM IN SIGNING STATEMENTS OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT

THE PROFOUND LACK OF WISDOM IN SIGNING STATEMENTS OF TRUTH ON BEHALF OF YOUR CLIENT

July 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The observations of the Administrative Court in MRH Solicitors -v- The County Court sitting at Manchester [2015] EWHC 1795 (Admin) were considered in an earlier post.  However there is one further aspect of the case that justifies examination. A CAVEAT…

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

  • COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS – LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
  • MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
  • MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
  • MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)

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

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.