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 » 18

CHILDREN AND SUCCESS FEES PART 2: WHAT SUCCESS FEE WAS REASONABLE?

September 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

We looked earlier at the decision of the Regional Cost Judge Lumb in the case of A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th August 2015). As a result of that case the decision of the success…

PLEADINGS PROOF AND EVIDENCE: CONFUSION IN ONE OFTEN LEADS TO PROBLEMS WITH THE OTHER

September 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Members Content, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

In Mann -v- Shelfside Holdings Limited [2015] EWHC 2583 (QB) the pleadings required rectifying at the start of the trial. The case is an interesting example of problems with pleading and proof. “This is not just a minor pleading point…

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

  • SERVICE POINTS 45: A SOLICITOR FAILS TO CHECK THE CE FILE AND 5,000 CLAIMS GO UP IN SMOKE: SEVERAL IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE, INCLUDING THE NEED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PROMPTLY…
  • WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PARTY DOES NOT RESPOND TO A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS (THERE IS NO “DEEMED ADMISSION”) PLUS ANOTHER POSSIBLE “HALLUCINATED” “FICTITIOUS” RULE
  • RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: SOME DELAYS WERE UNEXPLAINED AND THERE WERE OTHER BREACHES OF THE RULES: SOME LESSONS ON COMPLIANCE HERE…
  • COST BITES 393: A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT BETWEEN LAW FIRMS WAS VALID: THERE WAS NO BREACH (AND IF THERE WAS IT WAS NOT MATERIAL): FRESH OFF THE PRESS – JUDGMENT THIS AFTERNOON
  • AN EASY MISTAKE TO MAKE: HOW A CRUCIAL TIME LIMIT FOR APPEALING WAS MISSED: MISLABELLING OF THE FILES: THIS WAS NOT A “MINOR ERROR…”

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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