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 » February » 16
PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

The case of Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210 is one that needs to be read with great care.  A defendant who made a voluntary interim payment after making a Part 36 offer. The effect of this was…

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

We are looking again at the decision in  Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190     This was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act since the decision in Carroll v Chief…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE PAUCITY OF EVIDENCE PROVIDED BY THE DEFENDANTS: AN APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT CANNOT BE DEFENDED BY “BARE ASSERTION”
  • COST BITES 433: WHAT ARE “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” WHEN YOU WANT TO VARY A COSTS BUDGET? WHY THERE WERE NO SUCH DEVELOPMENTS HERE
  • COST BITES 432: THE COURT CANNOT ALTER THE COSTS BUDGET UNLESS THERE IS ARE “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” : HIGH COURT DECISION
  • COST BITES 431: A CASE WHERE BOTH SIDES NEEDED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS SO THAT THEY COULD ARGUE ISSUES OF COSTS: THE PROBLEMS FLOCK TOGETHER…
  • SERVICE POINTS 53: HOW DOES THE COURT PROTECT THE POSITION OF A PARTY WHO WANTS TO APPEAL DECISION IN RELATION TO JURISDICTION BUT RISKS “ACCEPTING” JURISDICTION IN THE MEANTIME? A PUZZLE SOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST THE STRIKING OUT OF A CASE BECAUSE A WITNESS STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED: THE SMALL CLAIMS PROTOCOL IS (VERY) DIFFERENT...
THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE: FINDINGS MADE ON KEY POINTS THAT WERE NOT PUT TO THE WITNESS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL (AUGUST 2017)
FAILING TO GIVE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: THE JUDGE MAY THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON HERE...
COST BITES 429: A REMINDER THAT A CLAIMANT IS STILL LIABLE TO PAY COSTS EVEN IF PROCEEDINGS ARE NEVER SERVED: SOMETHING ABOUT PRE-ACTION CONDUCT TOO...
EXPERT WATCH 64: LOOKING AT THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN EXPERT REPORTING BADLY

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.