Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2018 » January » 11
THE PROBLEM IN OBTAINING AN ORDER YOU HAVEN'T ASKED FOR:AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 3.4 WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION UNDER PART 24

THE PROBLEM IN OBTAINING AN ORDER YOU HAVEN’T ASKED FOR:AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 3.4 WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION UNDER PART 24

January 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment

The judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Saeed & Anor v Ibrahim & Ors [2018] EWHC 3 (Ch) contains several important observations in relation to making applications.  The Master refused to treat an application, ostensibly made under CPR 3.4, as an…

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

  • EXPERT WATCH 79: WHEN A LITIGANT INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT AND THEN SEEKS PERMISSION TO RELY ON THEM: MIXED RESULTS
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHERE ARE WE NOW ON “MISSING” WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE ? TEN KEY POINTS WITH USEFUL LINKS
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 101: PUTTING A FIGURE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT SUM
  • EXPERT WATCH 78 : “ROWING BACK”?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: “THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT”
  • SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON’T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU…)

Top Posts

A SUCCESSFUL JUDICIAL REVIEW OF A DECISION TO REFUSE PERMISSION TO APPEAL: GRANTING JUDGMENT AFTER AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION: A "WHOLLY EXCEPTIONAL COLLAPSE OF FAIR PROCEDURE"
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
COST BITES 465 : WITHOUT PREJUDICE COSTS BREAKDOWNS REMAINED PRIVILEGED: A LOWER BILL DID NOT ESTABLISH “UNAMBIGUOUS IMPROPRIETY”
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...

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.