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 » September » 28

TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS: A SECOND ACTION IS NOT ALWAYS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS & A BANKRUPT CANNOT BRING PROCEEDINGS

September 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Bowles in Khan -v- Khan & Ambala Foods Limited [2015] EWHC 2625 (Ch) contains a reminder of two important procedural points. KEY POINTS (1) The issue of a second set of proceedings is potentially an abuse…

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

  • WILL AN INSURER PAY FOR THIS? A CRUCIAL QUESTION FOR MOST PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMANTS: WEBINAR 30th OCTOBER 2026
  • “LITIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY APPLICATIONS AND ORDERS”: “THESE EPISTOLARY COMMUNICATIONS WERE LESS THAN SATISFACTORY…”
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 6: BEING SIGNED OFF WORK DOES NOT MEAN UNABLE TO ATTEND COURT: SUSPENDED COMMITTAL ORDER MADE AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS YOU MAY WANT TO READ THIS AS WELL…)
  • PROVING THINGS 301 : CAN AN APPLICANT IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS RELY UPON A JUDGMENT GIVEN AT TRIAL? WHAT WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO IT?
  • EXPERT WATCH 79: WHEN A LITIGANT INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT AND THEN SEEKS PERMISSION TO RELY ON THEM: MIXED RESULTS

Top Posts

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...)
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"
COST BITES 465 : WITHOUT PREJUDICE COSTS BREAKDOWNS REMAINED PRIVILEGED: A LOWER BILL DID NOT ESTABLISH “UNAMBIGUOUS IMPROPRIETY”
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"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...

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