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 » August » 19

REVISITING WHITEHOUSE -v- JORDAN 2: ON THE LAWYERS DRAFTING THE EXPERTS' REPORTS

August 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

The first post in this series on the judgments in Whitehouse -v- Jordan in the Court of Appeal and House of Lords  looked at the point that, at the appeal stage, the courts were only concerned with whether they could…

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 3: A NUANCED APPROACH

August 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Default judgment,, Members Content, Uncategorized

We have looked several times before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after judgment has been entered*.  The recent decision of Master Matthews in Merito Financial Services Limited -v- David Yelloly [2016] EWHC…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHERE ARE WE NOW ON “MISSING” WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE ? TEN KEY POINTS WITH USEFUL LINKS
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 101: PUTTING A FIGURE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT SUM
  • EXPERT WATCH 78 : “ROWING BACK”?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: “THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT”
  • SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU…)
  • LIMITATION: WHEN DID BLACK CAB DRIVERS HAVE “THE KNOWLEDGE”? CLAIM AGAINST UBER WAS STATUTE BARRED

Top Posts

A SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPEAL: GRANTING JUDGMENT AFTER AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION: A "WHOLLY EXCEPTIONAL COLLAPSE OF FAIR PROCEDURE"
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
COST BITES 465 : WITHOUT PREJUDICE COSTS BREAKDOWNS REMAINED PRIVILEGED: A LOWER BILL DID NOT ESTABLISH “UNAMBIGUOUS IMPROPRIETY”
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"

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