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 » May » 03
CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT "SEDLEY'S LAWS"

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT “SEDLEY’S LAWS”

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

If there is a league for blogs with the most number of  posts about bundles then Civil Litigation Brief may well be in the top 10 (sadly I suspect even in the top place). There is a reason for this….

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY "WISHFUL THINKING": £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "KNOWLEDGE" AND "BELIEF"? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “KNOWLEDGE” AND “BELIEF”? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has looked, many times, at the importance of giving the source of information and belief when a party (and particularly when a legal representative) makes a witness statement. It is sometimes possible for you opponent to attempt to…

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

There are many matters of interest in the short judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Watkins, R (On the Application Of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court [2018] EWHC 1029, a rare example of a party trying to judicially review a…

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

  • A NEW SERIES OF USEFUL ONLINE CALCULATORS FOR LITIGATORS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (WITH A 20% DISCOUNT FOR CLB READERS): MAKING IT ALL ADD UP
  • COST BITES 404: JUDGE ORDERS DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS: PARTIES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE WITH THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION: “THEY SHOULD BE USING NON-COURT BASED DISPUTE RESOLUTION WHEREVER POSSIBLE”
  • THE NEW SRA SUPERVISION GUIDANCE: WHAT LITIGATION FIRMS, AND LITIGATORS, NEED TO DO NOW: WEBINAR 25th JUNE 2025
  • AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS AND PROCEDURAL PROBLEMS – CLB IS PICKING UP THE PACE: LOOKING AT A CASE WHERE EVERYTHING WHEN DISASTROUSLY WRONG PROCEDURALLY – WITH CLEAR GUIDANCE ON HOW TO AVOID THIS GOING FORWARD
  • NEW COURT FEES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 13th JULY 2026: SOME BRAND NEW PROVISIONS AND THE INFLATIONARY INCREASES: THE CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS, THE MAGISTRATES’ COURT, THE LANDS CHAMBER (AND MANY OTHERS)

Top Posts

DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHO IS GIVEN THE TASK OF TRYING COMPLEX TRIALS: COURT OF APPEAL MISSIVE TO DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES (& MANY OTHERS...)
NEW COURT FEES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 13th JULY 2026: SOME BRAND NEW PROVISIONS AND THE INFLATIONARY INCREASES: THE CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS, THE MAGISTRATES' COURT, THE LANDS CHAMBER (AND MANY OTHERS)
COST BITES 403: JUDGMENT TODAY: SUCCESS FEE AND ATE PREMIUM NOT PAYABLE BY CLIENT WHEN THE SOLICITOR FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ENQUIRIES ABOUT BTE INSURANCE
PROVING THINGS 291: WHAT WEIGHT DOES A JUDGE GIVE TO WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESSES DO NOT ATTEND TRIAL AND (THE JUDGE FINDS) THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR THIS?
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: MAKING AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT: HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS: KEY POINTS AND SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS

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.