Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2017 » February
EXTENSIONS OF TIME UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT:  LATE APPLICATION REFUSED

EXTENSIONS OF TIME UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: LATE APPLICATION REFUSED

February 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content

In MLIA -v- The Chief Constable of Hampshire Police [2017] EWHC 292 (QB) Mr Justice Lavender refused the claimants’ applications for an extension of time to bring their actions under the Human Rights Act. THE CASE The claimants brought an…

MICROSOFT, SERVICE AND FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: HIGH COURT JUDGE SAYS "NO"

MICROSOFT, SERVICE AND FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: HIGH COURT JUDGE SAYS “NO”

February 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

One feature of this blog  for this year has been the duty owed by litigants making without notice applications.  Another example of the problems caused can be seen in the judgment on Mr Justice Marcus Smith in Microsoft Mobile OY…

CHANGES TO THE DISCOUNT RATE: WITHDRAWING PART 36 OFFERS:  IMPORTANT FOR CLAIMANTS AND DEFENDANTS

CHANGES TO THE DISCOUNT RATE: WITHDRAWING PART 36 OFFERS: IMPORTANT FOR CLAIMANTS AND DEFENDANTS

February 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

I wrote yesterday of the practical steps that need to be taken by both parties as a result of the changes to the discount rate (that post is on the Zenith PI Blog and is available here). One point that…

PREVENTING DEFENDANT FROM DEFENDING DAMAGES IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF ENFORCING PEREMPTORY ORDERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PREVENTING DEFENDANT FROM DEFENDING DAMAGES IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF ENFORCING PEREMPTORY ORDERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Peremptory orders

 Workman -v- Forrester [2017] EWCA Civ 73 is an important example of the courts using peremptory orders in an attempt to secure compliance.  The Court of Appeal upheld a decision to make a peremptory order that allowed the claimants to…

EVIDENCE IN PART 8 APPLICATIONS: APPLY IN ADVANCE OR YOU WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANY

EVIDENCE IN PART 8 APPLICATIONS: APPLY IN ADVANCE OR YOU WILL PROBABLY NOT BE ALLOWED TO CALL ANY

February 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Civil evidence, Injunctions, Members Content, Witness statements

It is unusual to call evidence in Part 8 applications. This is made clear in the judgment of HH Walden-Smith in Wokingham Borough Council -v- Scott [2017] EWHC 294 (QB).  A party failed to make an application to call oral…

EVIDENCE IN HOLIDAY ILLNESS CLAIMS: COURSE IN LIVERPOOL: 13th MARCH 2017: 2 – 4.30

February 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I am presenting a course on behalf of Diversify Law Limited on “Evidence in Holiday Illness Claims”,  in Liverpool on the 13th March 2017 2 – 4.30. VENUE (CLOSE TO THE CAVERN) It is at the “Hard Days Night” Hotel….

PROVING THINGS 54: GETTING £2 IN DAMAGES AFTER CLAIMING £15 MILLION: A MARATHON EFFORT WITH NO JACKPOT

PROVING THINGS 54: GETTING £2 IN DAMAGES AFTER CLAIMING £15 MILLION: A MARATHON EFFORT WITH NO JACKPOT

February 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt in Marathon Asset Management LLP -v- Seddon [2017] EWHC 300 (Comm) has already attracted some publicity. It involved an award for £2 in nominal damages after the claimants had sought £15 million. It is…

MERRIX ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT JUDGE: COSTS BUDGETING IS AS DEFINITIVE FOR PAYING PARTY AS IT IS FOR RECEIVING PARTY: JUDGMENT TODAY

MERRIX ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT JUDGE: COSTS BUDGETING IS AS DEFINITIVE FOR PAYING PARTY AS IT IS FOR RECEIVING PARTY: JUDGMENT TODAY

February 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In the judgment today in Merrix -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB) Mrs Justice Carr allowed an appeal about the significance of costs budgeting when it comes to assessment. “In my judgment, the answer to…

DISCLOSURE, CASE MANAGEMENT,  THE COLLATERAL USE OF DOCUMENTS AND  PROPORTIONALITY

DISCLOSURE, CASE MANAGEMENT, THE COLLATERAL USE OF DOCUMENTS AND PROPORTIONALITY

February 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

There are some passages in the judgment of Mr Justice Knowles in Tchenguiz -v- Grant Thornton UK LLP [2017] EWHC 310 (Comm) which highlight, succinctly, the nature of disclosure and the scope of “collateral use protection” in relation to documents…

WITNESS STATEMENTS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES:  IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS DID NOT DAMAGE CREDIBILITY (THIS TIME)

WITNESS STATEMENTS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: IDENTICAL WITNESS STATEMENTS DID NOT DAMAGE CREDIBILITY (THIS TIME)

February 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

I spent a day this week giving a seminar to a specialist group of clinical negligence lawyers on the importance of witness statements.  I mention this because, as always happens, there is a clear example of this in the judgment…

REFORMS TO SOFT TISSUE PROCESS: LINKS TO OFFICIAL PAPERS AND COMMENTARY (FROM CLAIMANTS AND INSURERS)

February 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Damages, Members Content, Rule Changes

The proposed reforms were set out in detail for the first time today.  Here are links to the relevant documents and some of the commentary: Official publications The 49 page paper from the government is here  The summary is here …

LEGAL COMPANY ENTITLED TO CHARGE FOR ITS TIME: SHACKLETON EXPLORES NEW GROUND

LEGAL COMPANY ENTITLED TO CHARGE FOR ITS TIME: SHACKLETON EXPLORES NEW GROUND

February 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Shackleton -v-Al Shamsi [2017] EWHC 304 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare considered the question of whether a company providing legal services  which was the claimant in the action could recover costs for the time of its “proprietor”  spent in bringing…

ALL THE WITNESSES SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING 10 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE (AND NOT BELIEVED)

ALL THE WITNESSES SAY EXACTLY THE SAME THING 10 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE (AND NOT BELIEVED)

February 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Patel -v- Patel [2017] Andrew Simmonds QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) was considering the credibility of witnesses.  The case is an interesting read in that it sets out detail of some of the cross-examination.  It…

SEXUAL ABUSE AND SECTION 33 OF THE LIMITATION ACT: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS JUDGE’S ORDER

February 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In Archbishop Michael George Bowen -v- JL [2017] EWCA Civ 82 the Court of Appeal overturned a judge’s decision under section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.  The judge had exercised the discretion in favour of the claimant. On appeal…

PROPORTIONALITY, ASSESSMENT AND PREMIUMS: THE NEED FOR CAREFUL CASE PLANNING: £72,320 REDUCED TO £24,604

February 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In Rezek-Clarke -v- Moorfields Eye Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC B5 (Costs) Master Simons upheld a decision to assess costs, claimed at £72,320.85 to £24,604.40.  The judgment emphasises the need for careful case planning, and consideration of proportionality, in…

AN ORDER UNDER THE ARBITRATION ACT IS NOT AN ORDER UNDER CPR 3.1(7)

February 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The judgment  of Popplewell J in H -v- L [2017] EWHC 137 (Comm) relates to an application to remove an arbitrator.   Most of the judgment considers the principles relating to the independence of arbitrators.  The judge also considered points…

PROVING THINGS 53: BECAUSE A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST SOME OF THE TIME IT DOESN’T MEAN THEY WERE DISHONEST ALL OF THE TIME

February 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Witness statements

The case of Pemberton Greenish LLP -v- Henry [2017] EWHC 246 (QB) provides an interesting assessment of witness evidence and demonstrates the difficulty in proving dishonesty. Mr Justice Jeremy Baker held that the fact that a solicitor was negligent, breached…

BABIES, BUNDLES, HUMAN RIGHTS, PROPORTIONALITY, CONDUCT AND COSTS:ALL IN ONE JUDGMENT

February 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Bundles, Conduct, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Proportionality

The judgment of Mr Justice Cobb in AZ -v- Kirklees Council [2017] EWFC 11 contains much of interest to the legal profession generally.  It shows the danger of failing to comply with court directions; make or respond to appropriate offers…

ANODYNE WITNESS STATEMENTS: WHAT DOES IT TELL YOU WHEN A JUDGE PREFERS THE ORAL EVIDENCE OF A WITNESS- THAT CONTRADICTS THEIR WITNESS STATEMENT

February 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is an interesting observation in the judgment of Mrs Justice Rose in Singularis Holdings Ltd -v- Daiwa Capital Markets Europe Ltd [2017] EWHC 257 (Ch).  It may well show much about the way in which witness statements are prepared. “……

EXPERTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON EXPERT ALSO USED BY CLAIMANT

February 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited -v- Millennium  Insurance Company Limited [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson allowed the defendant to rely on an expert that had also been instructed by the claimant. The circumstances are unusual and the case needs…

PROVING THINGS 52: SOLICITOR’S NEGLIGENCE ACTION FAILS ON ALL COUNTS: NO NEGLIGENCE AND NO LOSS

February 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of  HHH David Cooke today in Anderson Properties Ltd -v- Blyth Liggins [2017] EWHC 244 (Ch)  is another example of a solicitor’s negligence case failing because of the absence of basic evidence in relation to liability, causation and damages….

CONSEQUENCES OF LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFERS: RECENT DEVELOPMENTS

February 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

There is a useful report on the PIC website of a case where a claimant obtained indemnity costs after the defendant’s late acceptance of its Part 36 offer  The case of Car Craft Test Centre -v- Trotman a decision by…

THE DUTY ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS: SOLICITOR INVOLVED NOT ALLOWED TO APPEAL TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AGAINST FINDINGS AGAINST HIM

February 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Injunctions, Members Content

I am returning to the question of the lawyer’s duty on without notice applications. In March 2015 we looked at the case of Boreh -v- Republic of Djibouti [2015] EWHC 769 (Comm)  where Mr Justice Flaux made a clear and unequivocal…

THE MODERN JUDGE AND FACT FINDING: "TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION"

THE MODERN JUDGE AND FACT FINDING: “TRUTH IS STRANGER THAN FICTION”

February 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Book Review, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is a full review of Sir Mark Hedley’s book The Modern Judge on Pink Tape, where Lucy Reed explains how the book mysteriously appeared in her hotel room the morning after the Family Law Awards. (Lucy speculates that Sir…

TRIAL JUDGE’S REJECTION OF EXPERT WITNESS CREDIBILITY UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: IF AN EXPERT KNOWS A PARTY THEY SHOULD SAY SO

February 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In EXP -v- Barker [2017]  EWCA Civ 63 the Court of Appeal upheld the trial judge’s rejection of the evidence of an expert witness. “the starting point is to identify what the judge decided. He considered that the witness had…

ORAL CLOSING SUBMISSIONS ARE IMPORTANT: USE OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IS “UNSATISFACTORY”

February 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

In Pimlico Plumbers Ltd -v- Smith [2017] EWCA Civ 51 the Court of Appeal stated that oral closing submissions are important. Relying on written submissions alone represents a “considerable risk”. THE CASE The Court of Appeal was considering an appeal…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED(AFTER THE TRIAL)

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In the judgment today in  Schenk -v- Cook [2017] EWHC 144 (QB) Mr Justice Green upheld an order refusing relief from sanctions. However the appeal was heard in unusual circumstances. The judge considered the application for relief from sanctions striking…

RASTIN RESURRECTED: DO THE NEW RULES RE-INTRODUCE AUTOMATIC STRIKING OUT?

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out

There have been comments on Twitter, and now in the Gazette, that “automatic striking out” is being introduced by the rules coming into force on the 6th April 2017.  This is true, however it is important that the rules are…

PROVING THINGS 51: NO EVIDENCE OF LOSS – NO DAMAGES: A LESSON TO SHARE

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Witness statements

For the second time today we are looking at the judgment of Mrs Justice Proudman in Abbott -v- RCI Europe [2016] EWHC 2602 (Ch).  This time in relation to the failure of the claimants to quantify or prove they had…

YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE IDENTICAL: NOW THAT IS A COINCIDENCE

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There are, it seems, litigators out there who believe that the filing of numerous identical witness statements adds weight to their case.   Advocates of this approach may want to read the judgment of  Mrs Justice Proudman in Abbott -v-…

THE JUDICIAL ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: AN ESSENTIAL SUMMARY

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In  the judgment today in The Queen on the application of ASK -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 196 (Admin) Mr Justice Green sets out a template for the judicial assessment of evidence.  It provides…

NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE: COSTS BUDGETING AND QADER RESULT CODIFIED

February 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2017 were made on the 3rd February.  Most of these come into force on the 6th April 2017. The new rules are available here COSTS BUDGETING The amendments set out below may be perplexing.  However…

ADMISSIBILITY OF PREVIOUS JUDGMENT AS EVIDENCE OF FOREIGN LAW

February 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

In Joint Stock Company -v- Wood [2017] EWHC 150 (Ch) Mr Justice Warren considered whether a decision by  judge in relation to foreign law was admissible as evidence. KEY POINTS A previous judgment where the judge considered and made findings…

London Seminar for PIBA MEMBERS: It’s all Counsel’s fault: key problem areas and how to manage your practice to avoid them

February 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content

Title: “It’s all Counsel’s fault: key problem areas and how to manage your practice to avoid them” Speaker: Gordon Exall, Barrister at Hardwicke, London and Zenith Chambers, Leeds.   Topics to be covered: * Your name in the law reports…

BANKERS, WITNESS STATEMENTS AND CREDIBILITY: THE ENIGMATIC WITNESS

February 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Nugee in Clydesdale Bank plc -v- Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 181 (Ch) also contains an analysis of a witness who was “something of an enigma” “Although a witness statement should be…

WHAT INFERENCES SHOULD THE JUDGE DRAW WHEN A WITNESS CLAIMS PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION?

February 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Nugee in Clydesdale Bank plc -v- Stoke Place Hotel Ltd (in administration) [2017] EWHC 181 (Ch) is another one of those cases we will look at twice.  Both posts will be about the judge’s assessment…

AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN SINCE ISSUE: CONSIDER THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AND NOT THE RSC

February 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I said that there would be two posts about the judgment of Master Marsh in The Football Association Premier League Limited -v- O’Donovan [2017] EWHC 152 (Ch).  The first looked at the lifting of the automatic stay. Here we look…

AMENDMENT PROVIDES A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS: PERMISSION TO AMEND TO CLARIFY POSITION OF PARTY PERMITTED

AMENDMENT PROVIDES A BRIDGE OVER TROUBLED WATERS: PERMISSION TO AMEND TO CLARIFY POSITION OF PARTY PERMITTED

February 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case

Decisions on amendment and limitation arguments are cropping up at the moment. Here we look at the judgment of Master Kay QC in Highways England Company Limited -v- B.G. Rodwell Limited[2017] EWHC 118(QB).  The defendant raised issues under Section 35…

CELEBRITY TITTLE TATTLE IS NOT NEWS: A DECISION AS TO COSTS

February 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

The case of Stone -v- Flynet Pictures Limited [2017] EWHC B3 (Costs) is likely to attract the headlines because the second claimant was David Walliams.  It is also likely to attract the pun writers ( Litigation Futures has already done…

APPLICATION FOR INDEMNITY COSTS REFUSED: THE JUDGE LOOKS AT THE COSTS BUDGET OF THE LOSING PARTY

February 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We have looked many times at cases where judges have considered granting indemnity costs.  This issue was considered by Mr Justice Coulson in MacInnes -v- Gross [2017]EWHC 127 (QB). One interesting aspect is that the judge looked at the losing…

FOOTBALL ASSOCIATION ALLOWED EXTRA TIME: CPR 15.11 CONSIDERED: NOT AN ESPECIALLY HEAVY BURDEN

February 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are going to be two posts  about the judgment of Master Marsh in The Football Association Premier League Limited -v- O’Donovan [2017] EWHC 152 (Ch). Here we look at the decision in relation to CPR 15.11. (The second post…

ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL BIAS AND THE INFORMED OBSERVER TEST: THE LAW AND PRACTICE

February 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Kimyani -v- Sandhu [2017] EWHC 151 (Ch) Master Matthews dealt with the difficult issue of a litigant alleging judicial bias.  This judgment emphasises the fact that the test is one of the fair minded and informed observer and not…

THE DUTY OF FULL DISCLOSURE ON WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMS OCCURRING

February 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The New Year’s resolution for litigators that I recommended this year came (apparently) as a surprise to many: “Think very carefully before, during and after, making an ex parte application of any kind.”  The judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews DBE…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY ON AN QUESTION OF CONSTRUCTION: SNEAKING EXPERT EVIDENCE INTO WITNESS STATEMENTS: EVIDENCE IS STRUCK OUT

February 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

We have seen several examples of litigants attempting to give “expert” evidence in their witness statements.  This practice was considered by Master Matthews in Change Red Limited -v- Barclays Bank PLC [2016] EWHC 3489 (Ch). The Master was considering whether…

BOOKS ABOUT ADVOCACY: MUNKMAN ON THE TECHNIQUE OF ADVOCACY

BOOKS ABOUT ADVOCACY: MUNKMAN ON THE TECHNIQUE OF ADVOCACY

February 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Book Review, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

Every litigator is an advocate, whether they know it or not.  Litigation is fundamentally about the art of persuasion.  This is a litigator’s daily task: in correspondence, on the phone, with the court.  This is best done by the careful…

E-DISCLOSURE: UNLESS ORDERS: STRIKING OUT, COMPLIANCE AND DENTON: DEFENDANTS COME TO GRIEF

February 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a lot to consider in the judgment today of Mr Justice Green in Micheal -v- Phillips [2017] EWHC 42 (QB). It relates to inadequate disclosure; retention of electronic documents; peremptory orders and relief from sanctions. Things did not…

A COUNTERCLAIM IS SUBJECT TO THE SAME RULES AS LIMITATION AS A CLAIM: SECTION 35 OF THE LIMITATION ACT CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In the judgment today in  Al-Rawas -v- Hassan Khan (A Firm) [2017] EWCA Civ 42 the Court of Appeal held that a counterclaim did not have any special status under the Limitation Act. It was subject to the same principles as…

FIXED COSTS APPLY TO APPLICATIONS FOR PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

February 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Disclosure, Members Content, QOCS

The Court of Appeal judgment today in Sharp -v- Leeds City Council [2017] EWCA Civ 33 deals with an important point about fixed costs and applications for pre-action disclosure. KEY POINTS An application for pre-action disclosure made by a claimant…

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
  • PART 36: SHOULD THE COURT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION SO THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY? THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE “FORMIDABLE OBSTACLE”…

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
  • MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
  • MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE
  • MAZUR MATTERS 8: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" (1): HOW HELPFUL ARE THE REGULATORS?
  • THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.