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 » July » 14

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…

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

  • PROVING THINGS 299 : DISCLOSURE FAILURES, MISSING DOCUMENTS AND THE RELIABILITY OF WITNESS EVIDENCE: THE CONSEQUENCES AT TRIAL
  • EXPERT WATCH 77 : YOU CANNOT WAIT UNTIL TRIAL TO COMPLAIN ABOUT THE ABSENCE OF EXPERT EVIDENCE (PARTICULARLY WHEN YOU HAVE EARLIER SAID IT WAS UNNECESSARY)
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: WITNESS STATEMENTS AND SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF: 10 KEY POINTS THAT LITIGATORS SHOULD KNOW: A JUDGE MAKE GET A BIT IRKED IF YOU TRY TO USURP THEIR ROLE (OCTOBER 2018)
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HALLUCINATIONS – CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE PROFESSION AGAIN: “… THIS DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE CONSIDERABLE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH CAN ARISE WHEN INAPPROPRIATE USE IS MADE OF AI”
  • PROVING THINGS 298: CLAIMANT BANK FAILS TO PROVE ITS CASE EVEN THOUGH ONE DEFENDANT WAS DEBARRED FROM DEFENDING: VERIFIED PLEADINGS AND DOCUMENTARY COMMENTARY WERE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR PROOF

Top Posts

ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE HALLUCINATIONS - CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR THE PROFESSION AGAIN: "... THIS DECISION ILLUSTRATES THE CONSIDERABLE PROCEDURAL DIFFICULTIES WHICH CAN ARISE WHEN INAPPROPRIATE USE IS MADE OF AI"
ARE YOU SURE WHO IS REALLY INSTRUCTING YOU? SOLICITORS DECEIVED BY A FALSE EMAIL ADDRESS IN NAOMI CAMPBELL’S CASE
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHAT DO YOU DO IF A WITNESS FINDS A MISTAKE IN THEIR STATEMENT?
COSTS BITES 461: WINNING THE CASE BUT LOSING THE MAIN BATTLE MEANS CLAIMANT RECOVERS 85% OF COSTS: DEFENDANT CANNOT SEEK THE ADVANTAGES OF PART 36 WITHOUT MAKING A PART 36 OFFER
FALSE DOCUMENTS, LATE EVIDENCE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES THAT MAKE JUDICIAL LIFE MORE DIFFICULT...

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