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 » November » 20
SOME FEEDBACK - WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM

SOME FEEDBACK – WHEN DEFENCE TURNS TO COUNTERCLAIM

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Litigants in person, Members Content

Feedback from readers is rare.  I received a letter today which the author has given be permission to reproduce.   Just a quick note of thanks. I’m an LIP, having been involved in litigation as defendant for the last 3…

Proving things 74: WHEN YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM FABULOUS AND COMES WITH A "HEALTH WARNING": APPLICANT'S CASE PUT BACK IN THE BOX

Proving things 74: WHEN YOUR EVIDENCE IS FAR FROM FABULOUS AND COMES WITH A “HEALTH WARNING”: APPLICANT’S CASE PUT BACK IN THE BOX

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

There is an interesting discussion of the evidence in the Upper Tribunal decision in Fabulous Collections Ltd v Smith (Valuation Officer), Re: 3 Poplar Arcade [2017] UKUT 452. A central part of an applicant’s case essentially disappeared on the morning of…

THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH AND LEGAL HYPOCRISY: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM DOCTORS?

THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH AND LEGAL HYPOCRISY: WHAT WE CAN LEARN FROM DOCTORS?

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Lawyers, particularly litigators, are infinitely wise.  This is because we specialise in hindsight: “Why didn’t you do that?” ; “You should have done that”; “Why wasn’t that written down?”  This is particularly acute in clinical negligence cases where one profession…

LIMITATION, THE CARE ACT, COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION AND DIFFICULT TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

LIMITATION, THE CARE ACT, COUNTY COURT JURISDICTION AND DIFFICULT TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS.

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

In Nottinghamshire County Council v Belton, The Estate of & Anor [2017] EW Misc 26 (CC) His Honour Judge Godsmark QC considered an issue of  jurisdiction and limitation in a claim being brought by a local authority to recover fees paid…

SERVICE BY EMAIL: WHO ARE YOU SERVING? A POINT TO WATCH

SERVICE BY EMAIL: WHO ARE YOU SERVING? A POINT TO WATCH

November 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Members Content, Serving documents

The judgment in Glencore Agriculture BV v Conqueror Holdings Ltd [2017] EWHC 2893  highlights a crucial point about service by email.  If you are (and are allowed to) serve by email – check that the address being used is the 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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • DOES AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMOUNT TO A “STEP IN THE ACTION” SO THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS DISPLACED? AN IMPORTANT QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL
  • WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES – CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
  • CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 95: THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE HAD AWARDED THE CLAIMANTS MORE THAN THEIR PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 72: THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT IT TOO LATE TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT TRIAL NOT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING IT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS
THE SRA CANNOT COMPEL A SOLICITOR TO DISCLOSE A CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

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.