One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN’T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
- AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 59: REMEMBER THAT MOST OF THIS AROSE BECAUSE SOMEONE DIDN'T KNOW (OR APPLY) THE CORRECT RULES AS TO FIXED COSTS
- BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
- COST BITES 376: THE NEED TO KEEP THE CLIENT INFORMED OF COSTS BEING INCURRED: THE SOLICITOR SHOULD HAVE INFORMED THE CLIENT THAT COSTS OF US $35,343,213.96 WERE BEING INCURRED
- WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
- SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
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
One needs to be a bit careful about the concept of the order being the “decision” (para 7 of the judgment in Bath v Escott), because there is authority to the effect that in certain contexts, such as the rule that is now CPR rule 52.12 (time for filing an appellant’s notice is 21 days after the decision of the lower court”), the word “decision” can mean “the date when the judge makes his decision, and not the date when the order reflecting his decision is drawn up”: see Owusu v Jackson [2002] EWCA Civ 877, at [5] (although the authority given in Owusu for this proposition does not actually say what is said in Owusu). The conventional learning to the effect that one appeals an order rather than a judgment must be read subject to this – one may need to commence an appeal before the order of the court below has even been drawn.