One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER WHILST AN APPLICATION TO REALLOCATE THE CASE FROM BAND 2 TO BAND 1 IS PENDING: CAN THE COURT STILL PROCEED TO REALLOCATE?
- PROVING THINGS 286: THE CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE ITS CASE: YOU LOST US $715 MILLION IN TWO YEARS BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE YOU DID NOT UNDERSTAND THE BUSINESS YOU WERE BUYING
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 66: WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIES TO ADVANCE ALLEGATIONS NOT STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE THOSE MATTERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE
- PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT: NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FROM 14th APRIL 2026 (UPDATED)
- “GUIDE, MENTOR AND FRIEND”: REVIEW OF THE APIL GUIDE TO CATASTROPHIC INJURY CLAIMS 4th EDITION: STUART McKECHNIE KC (AND A FORMIDABLE TEAM): THE “LITTLE GEM” THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
Top Posts
- PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT: NEW REQUIREMENTS FOR SUMMARY ASSESSMENT FROM 14th APRIL 2026 (UPDATED)
- "GUIDE, MENTOR AND FRIEND": REVIEW OF THE APIL GUIDE TO CATASTROPHIC INJURY CLAIMS 4th EDITION: STUART McKECHNIE KC (AND A FORMIDABLE TEAM): THE "LITTLE GEM" THAT KEEPS ON GIVING
- ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER WHILST AN APPLICATION TO REALLOCATE THE CASE FROM BAND 2 TO BAND 1 IS PENDING: CAN THE COURT STILL PROCEED TO REALLOCATE?
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: PD57AC WAS FIVE YEARS OLD THIS MONTH - STILL GUIDANCE IS NEEDED
- THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 66: WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIES TO ADVANCE ALLEGATIONS NOT STATED IN THE STATEMENT OF CASE THOSE MATTERS ARE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE JUDGE
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
I had a quick read of the judgment, and find it difficult to believe that so much effort – and valuable court time – has been wasted on such a pathetic claim that resulted in damages amounting to the grand total of £476.18.
It’s absurd that scarce court resources can be squandered on this type of nonsense that only benefits the lawyers concerned. In view of the triviality of the sum awarded there should have been no order for costs, so as to discourage similarly ridiculous claims in the future.