One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
- ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
- COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)
Top Posts
- A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
- BARRISTER REFERRED TO THE BSB BECAUSE OF THE USE OF AI "HALLUCINATED" CASES: IGNORANCE THAT THIS WAS HAPPENING IS NO DEFENCE
- IT WOULD BE AN "AFFRONT TO JUSTICE" NOT TO SET ASIDE THIS "FINAL" JUDGMENT: THERE IS A LOT HERE THAT EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THE LITIGATION PROCESS SHOULD PROBABLY READ
- COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
- SOCIAL MEDIA AND CIVIL EVIDENCE: ITS USE IN A TRIAL ABOUT... SCAFFOLDING
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
This is an important subject! In a Clin Neg case I normally name D if it is obvious eg a single NHS Hospital Trust. If it is less certain – private treatment, GP etc I would normally leave the name out and refer to the cause of action – eg ‘claim for CN arising out of failure to diagnose a fractured leg in 2015’. Seems safer than guessing. Any thoughts?