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 » August » 11

PSYCHOBABBLE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: STRONG VIEWS FROM THE FAMILY COURT

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

This blog has looked many times at the perils of giving “opinion” evidence in witness statements. A particularly stark example can by found in the judgment of Ms Justice Russell in re W [2015] EWHC 2039 (Fam).  Another case that…

WRITTEN ADVOCACY: CANDOUR & CONCISION ESSENTIAL GUIDANCE FROM CANADA

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Written advocacy

One of the advantages of writing a blog is that you can point out useful posts and articles. Anyone involved in legal argument benefit the guidance by John L Laskin J.A. in Forget the Wind-Up and Make the Pitch Some…

EXPERT EVIDENCE IN INSURANCE CASES 2: BRIT UW LIMITED: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE UNDERMINED DEFENDANT'S CASE

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There are, coincidentally, two recent cases on the use of expert witnesses in insurance disputes.  In Brit UW Limited -v- F & B Trenchless Solutions Limited [2015] EWHC 2237 (Comm) Mrs Justice Carr DBE considered the utility of expert evidence…

EXPERT WITNESSES IN INSURANCE CASES 1: INVOLNERT MANAGEMENT

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Involnert Management Inc -v- AIS Insurance Services Limited [2015] EWHC 2225 (Comm) Mr Justice Leggatt considered the evidence of experts in a case between insurer and insured and, more particularly,between the insured and insurance broker. THE CASE The defendants…

PERMISSION TO APPEAL CANNOT BE OPEN-ENDED: HIGH COURT DECISION

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

In  Ghura -v- Dalal [2015] EWHC 2385 Mr Justice Norris rejected the idea that time for appealing could be open-ended or ambiguous in its scope. KEY POINTS The Court does not have power to extend time for appealing “generally”. In…

ESSENTIAL READING: "FEES A CROWD WHEN JUSTICE AND POLITICS COLLIDE": A NLJ & LSLA PUBLICATION

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

There is a section on this  blog devoted to links to posts on procedure and costs. Occasionally, however, a post is so important that I feel compelled to draw attention to it. This definitely applies to the publication “Litigation Trends…

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

  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT – AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE’S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

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