2 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 12.3K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- COST BITES 391: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION THAT SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THERE IS NO “RESTITUTIONARY” RIGHT TO DAMAGES WHERE THE CFA ITSELF MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
- THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – LANDING SOLICITORS IN SERIOUS TROUBLE AGAIN (AND DON’T BLAME THE AI FOR EVERYTHING – IT ACTUALLY GAVE OUT WARNINGS TO CHECK…)
- BACK TO BASICS (BANK HOLIDAY) MONDAY: A REMINDER OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE COURT APPROACHES A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
- COST BITES 390: THE COURT OF APPEAL, “LATE” WITNESS STATEMENTS, THE COPPERS AND THE COSTS
- AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: WEBINAR 26th MAY 2026: NOW WITH ADDED CHECKLISTS
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
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Exactly – as I was reading this post I was thinking about the use of red stamping ink. Modern copying technology is so good, it can be hard to tell originals from copies.
Interesting comments about Part 11 and I am sure you are right that, at some point in the future, there will be scope for arguing the extent to which Part 11 applies, in a court which can make an authoritative decision.
I am not sure, however, that parties are necessarily ignoring the effect of Hoddinott…
CPR 11
(2) A defendant who wishes to make such an application [to dispute jurisdiction] must first file an acknowledgment of service in accordance with Part 10.
CPR 10.3
(1) The general rule is that the period for filing an acknowledgment of service is –
(a) where the defendant is served with a claim form which states that particulars of claim are to follow, 14 days after service of the particulars of claim; and
(b) in any other case, 14 days after service of the claim form.
It is arguable, therefore, that in a case of non-service of the claim form (which is what the reported case was and many other cases are), that CPR 10.3 is not engaged and by extension, CPR 11(2) is not engaged either.