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 » September » 12

HOW THE BANKS GOT AWAY WITHOUT PAYING COURT FEES (FOR A WHILE)

September 12, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthews in Santander UK plc -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 2560 (Ch) is an important review of the Norwich Pharmacal principles. However that is not what catches the eye.  For a while…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN OCCUR WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE CLAIM FORM: TEN KEY POINTS
  • BOOK REVIEW: CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE BY NEIL SUGARMAN
  • PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: “THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT’S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS”
  • TRYING TO RE-OPEN THE CASE AFTER BEING SENT A DRAFT JUDGMENT: “IT IS NOT INTENDED TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANY PARTY … TO REOPEN OR REARGUE THE CASE”
  • FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT’S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE…

Top Posts

WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE NEWS 6 : CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE SOLICITORS WERE NEGLIGENT IN ADVISING UPON SETTLEMENT (IN FACT IT FAILS TO PROVE A LOT OF OTHER MATTERS AS WELL...)
THE COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS CEASE TO ACT FOR HER: THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC CONFLICT AND EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED

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