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 » October » 20

A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS SURVIVAL GUIDE: MANCHESTER 5th DECEMBER 2017: “SCHADENFREUDE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS”

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Clinical Negligence, Courses, Members Content

Along with Stephen Grime QC I am talking on the afternoon of the 5th December 2017 in Manchester. “A Clinical Negligence Lawyers Survival Guide” looks at avoiding substantive and procedure problems during the course of a clinical negligence action. Included…

TRAVEL LAW AND LIMITATION: AN UPDATE AND HELPFUL REMINDER

TRAVEL LAW AND LIMITATION: AN UPDATE AND HELPFUL REMINDER

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

The aim of the series on limitation “myths” is to be succinct and point out dangers. This is only a starting point. Be aware of the dangers – but there can be exceptions. I am grateful to Julian Chamberlayne from…

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD ON APPEAL:  DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF LIMITATION HEARING

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD ON APPEAL: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF LIMITATION HEARING

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Limitation, Members Content

In Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip upheld a Master’s decision under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Master’s decision that the defendant pay the costs of the issue of limitation was also upheld. THE…

LIMITATION MYTHS 9 (A): A BIT MORE ABOUT AVIATION, AIRPORTS AND HOT AIR BALLOONS: A POINT WORTH REPEATING

LIMITATION MYTHS 9 (A): A BIT MORE ABOUT AVIATION, AIRPORTS AND HOT AIR BALLOONS: A POINT WORTH REPEATING

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

What has been interesting in the series on Myths and Limitation has been the response, mainly on Twitter. “That happened to me”, or “I sued someone who missed that point”. This even found its way into the “Halloween for Litigators”…

"YOU ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CFA": THERE IS NOT MUCH USE IN ATTACKING THE SOURCE OF YOUR OPPONENT'S FUNDING

“YOU ARE ONLY HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CFA”: THERE IS NOT MUCH USE IN ATTACKING THE SOURCE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S FUNDING

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In an earlier post we looked the judge’s views in relation to witness credibility in Riva Properties Ltd & Ors v Foster + Partners Ltd [2017] EWHC 2574 (TCC). Here we look at the judge’s view on the defendant’s attack on the…

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
  • SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)
  • COST BITES 391: TOO MUCH CORRESPONDENCE, GRADE C RATES NOT INCREASED AND “SO CALLED” SKELETON ARGUMENTS, WHICH REPEAT THE CONTENTS OF OVER-LENGTHY WITNESS STATEMENTS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
  • COST BITES 391: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION THAT SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THERE IS NO “RESTITUTIONARY” RIGHT TO DAMAGES WHERE THE CFA ITSELF MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.