Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2016 » May » 15

LEARNING HOW TO PROVE THINGS: A BASIC SKILL THAT NEEDS HONING

May 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

As part of the occasional series which jogs peoples memories about New Year’s resolutions for 2016 I am revisiting resolution number 6: “learn how to prove things”. A very basic skill in the litigator’s armoury, but one which is barely…

THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION OF EXPENSIVE BUNDLES: COULD IT BE CHEAPER ELECTRONICALLY?

May 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

Since Supreme Court decisions on trial bundles are few and far between I am  compelled to write about the judgment in Eclipse Film Partners -v- Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2016] UKSC 24.  Here the Court considered bundles…

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 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS”: THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • THE DEFENDANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON’T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A USEFUL ENCAPSULATION OF THE COURT’S APPROACH TO DISPUTED WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESSES CAN LIE FOR VARIOUS REASONS
  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…

Top Posts

  • THE DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON'T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A USEFUL ENCAPSULATION OF THE COURT'S APPROACH TO DISPUTED WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESSES CAN LIE FOR VARIOUS REASONS
  • SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE "LAST KNOWN ADDRESS": THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...

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