Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2017 » March » 03
A WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE IS IN PURDAH: THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER

A WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE IS IN PURDAH: THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

The Employment Tribunal decision in Chidzoy -v- BBC (available here) contains an important lesson to lawyers and litigants alike.  A witness in the course of giving evidence is in “purdah” – in that they should not discuss the case with…

THE SELF-CONFIDENT WITNESSES THAT CONVINCE THEMSELVES BUT NO-ONE CAN RELY ON

THE SELF-CONFIDENT WITNESSES THAT CONVINCE THEMSELVES BUT NO-ONE CAN RELY ON

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Bhullar -v- Bhullar [2017] EWHC 407 (Ch) His Honour Judge Stephen Davies had the difficult task of ascertaining the truth in that most fraught and difficult of circumstances: a family that has been in business together and then fallen out….

EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS

EXPERT WITNESSES: RARELY TOTALLY IMPARTIAL BUT SOME ARE LESS PARTIAL THAN OTHERS

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is a short passage in the judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Edward Lifesciences -v- Boston Scientific 2017] EWHC 405 (Pat) (03 March 2017) that encapsulate the issues surrounding the assessment of expert evidence. “Rarely, if ever, is an…

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker in Chambers -v- Rooney [2017] EWHC 285 (QB) that amount to an open letter from the High Court to litigants in person. Some of the observations are aimed at everyone…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • YOU CAN’T SIMPLY WITHDRAW AN APPEAL WITHOUT PERMISSION: APPELLANT SEEKS TO WITHDRAW APPEAL & DOESN’T ATTEND – BUT THE APPEAL GOES AHEAD AND THE APPELLANT WINS …
  • PROVING THINGS 305 : DEFENDANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY BREACHES AND (IN ANY EVENT) HAD MADE A PROFIT HERE NOT A LOSS: IF YOU PLEAD DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE THEM
  • SERVICE POINTS 59: AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DID NOT EXTEND TIME FOR THE CLAIM FORM: NEITHER DID THE ACTUAL STRIKING OUT OF THE ACTION…
  • THERE HAS NOT BEEN FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN LITIGATION SPANS SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS: “THE SUPPOSED EXPLANATIONS BELATEDLY OFFERED … AMOUNT TO LITTLE MORE THAN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FAILING WITH A RATHER LAME CONFESSION OF INABILITY TO EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY IT OCCURRED”
  • MI5: CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTERNAL REPORTS: THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING: A POINT OF GENERAL RELEVANCE NOT JUST SECRET AGENTS…

Top Posts

FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
YOU CAN'T SIMPLY WITHDRAW AN APPEAL WITHOUT PERMISSION: APPELLANT SEEKS TO WITHDRAW APPEAL & DOESN'T ATTEND - BUT THE APPEAL GOES AHEAD AND THE APPELLANT WINS ...
THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT

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

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.