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 » December » 11

"TOTALLY HOPELESS" APPLICATION FOR DISCLOSURE;INADEQUATE WITNESS STATEMENTS;APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION REFUSED:ALL LEGAL LIFE IS HERE

December 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in London Borough of Bromley -v- Heckel [2015] EWHC encompasses many of the themes regularly discussed in this blog. Proceedings were issued late;there was an inappropriate application for disclosure;the witness evidence was inadequate. Finally…

NO SPECIAL RULES FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: COSTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE EVENT FOLLOWING UNREASONABLE CONDUCT

December 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Litigants in person, Members Content, Uncategorized

Master Mathews faced an unusual scenario in Jones -v- Longley [2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch).  This case highlights the fact that litigants in person are not subject to any special rules and are liable to have orders for costs made against…

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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
  • COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)

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