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 » June » 19
GET £15,000 FOR YOUR COSTS PAY £20,000 IN COSTS: CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND WAS SET ASIDE

GET £15,000 FOR YOUR COSTS PAY £20,000 IN COSTS: CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT UNFAIR AND UNREASONABLE AND WAS SET ASIDE

June 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Vilvarajah -v- West London Law Limited [2017] EWHC B23 (Costs) Master Gordon Saker declared a conditional fee agreement unreasonable and set it aside. The history and circumstances of this action make for interesting reading. “There is no correspondence between…

NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CAR HIRE FIRM: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN A FORENSIC WAR

NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CAR HIRE FIRM: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN A FORENSIC WAR

June 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Third party funding

The opening words of Mr Justice Turner’s judgment in Select Car Rentals (North West) Limited -v- Esure Services Limited [2017] EWHC 1434 (QB) contain an undeniable truth. The judge was upholding a decision to award costs against a car hire…

APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO ALLOW LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AT TRIAL: CLAIMANT'S APPEAL DISMISSED

APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL TO ALLOW LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AT TRIAL: CLAIMANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED

June 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

There are a surprising number of cases and appeals in relation to late service of witness evidence. In Byrne -v- Mullan [2017] EWHC 1387 (Ch) the claimant made an application to adduce new witness evidence which was heard on the…

GLADWIN & SANCTIONS - AN ANALYSIS 2: WHY (IN THEORY) THE DEFAULTING CLAIMANT COULD STILL RELY ON THE LATE WITNESS EVIDENCE

GLADWIN & SANCTIONS – AN ANALYSIS 2: WHY (IN THEORY) THE DEFAULTING CLAIMANT COULD STILL RELY ON THE LATE WITNESS EVIDENCE

June 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Members Content, 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 the second of the series looking at the case more closely we…

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

  • CAN THE WORDING OF A COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING TERMS OF BUSINESS FROM A SOLICITOR TO A CLIENT GIVE RISE TO AN ESTOPPEL SO AS TO PREVENT RELIANCE ON THOSE TERMS?
  • CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ISSUE A CLAIM FORM? CAN THE STAFF LAWFULLY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE JUDGE? AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
  • COST BITES 412: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO GIVE FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE ON AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT LEAD TO THE DEFENDANTS RECOVERING INDEMNITY COSTS: CONDUCT CONSIDERED
  • WAS A SOLICITOR’S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION “REASONABLE”: COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?
  • WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES – BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE “HOSTILE”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.