Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
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 » June » 14
GLADWIN & SANCTIONS - AN ANALYSIS 1: WHAT WENT WRONG

GLADWIN & SANCTIONS – AN ANALYSIS 1: WHAT WENT WRONG

June 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Witness statements

In Gladwin -v- Bogescu [2017] EWHC 1287 (QB) Mr Justice Turner overturned an order giving the claimant relief from sanctions following late service of the witness statement. In a series looking at the case more closely we look at what…

"THE DOG ATE MY COURTWORK": REASONS, EXCUSES AND EXPLANATIONS IN APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

“THE DOG ATE MY COURTWORK”: REASONS, EXCUSES AND EXPLANATIONS IN APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

June 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Relief from sanctions

 One thing that the the Denton decision did, without doubt*, was to put an end to the “mandatory” requirement for a “good reason” to explain a breach when applying for relief from sanctions.   However it is always incumbent upon…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,009 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • REPEAT SERIES ON WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL III: THRIVE & SURVIVE: (UPDATED) GUIDANCE FROM NEW SOUTH WALES
  • COST BITES 52: “WE WANT IT ALL AND WE WANT IT NOW”: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
  • “INTERROGATION” OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
  • COST BITES 51: CASE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAST TRACK NOT SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
  • PROVING THINGS 247: A NON-CONVICTION CANNOT IMPOSE A CIVIL DUTY OF CARE: CLAIMANT FAILS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION

Top Posts & Pages

  • COST BITES 52: "WE WANT IT ALL AND WE WANT IT NOW": COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS
  • REPEAT SERIES ON WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL III: THRIVE & SURVIVE: (UPDATED) GUIDANCE FROM NEW SOUTH WALES
  • "INTERROGATION" OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
  • COST BITES 51: CASE FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT WAS APPROPRIATE FOR THE FAST TRACK NOT SMALL CLAIMS TRACK: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
  • MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: AN APPLICATION THAT PROVED COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANT

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 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin