Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » 2018 » March » 19
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW: SERIES 2 PART 8: EFFECTIVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: "FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT" & THE "CHUNKIFICATION" OF ARGUMENTS

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 2 PART 8: EFFECTIVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: “FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT” & THE “CHUNKIFICATION” OF ARGUMENTS

March 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Written advocacy

This series certainly takes us around the globe.  Here I am looking at a paper written by Justice Susan Glazebrook, a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Her paper on “Effective written submissions” written in 2014. As always…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : A CLASSIC CASE FOR RELIEF TO BE GRANTED: NOTICE TO PROVE SERVED LATE

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : A CLASSIC CASE FOR RELIEF TO BE GRANTED: NOTICE TO PROVE SERVED LATE

March 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Disclosure, Relief from sanctions

In Tuke v JD Classics Ltd [2018] EWHC 531 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles granted a claimant relief from sanctions when a “Notice to Prove” was served late.  It is a reminder, amongst other things, of the need to serve a…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23,049 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: “A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE’S FUNCTION)
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN – AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT… & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

Top Posts & Pages

  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT... & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN - AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: "A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION)
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin