Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2018 » July
APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM REFUSED: CLAIMANT'S CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT GOES UP IN SMOKE...

APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM REFUSED: CLAIMANT’S CASE AGAINST THIS DEFENDANT GOES UP IN SMOKE…

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Viner -v- Volkswagen Group Limited [2018] EWHC 2006 (QB) Senior Master Fontaine refused the claimants’ application to extend time for service of the claim form. A link to the judgment is available from the Law Society Gazette article on…

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO "MIXED CLAIMS": THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO “MIXED CLAIMS”: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018] EWHC 2046 (Admin) Mrs Justice Whipple held that a claim against the police for misuse of data, misfeasance in public office and misuse of private information, did not give rise…

CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST: EDITING STATEMENTS CAN AFFECT CREDIBILITY

CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS: COMPARE AND CONTRAST: EDITING STATEMENTS CAN AFFECT CREDIBILITY

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment case of ML (A Child) v Guy’s And St Thomas’ National Healthcare Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 2010 has an interesting passage on witness statements. It is an example of how early witness statements that were not initially disclosed can…

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Hertel & Anor v Saunders & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an offer made was not a valid Part 36 offer.  It was held that a Part 36 offer had to be…

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT'S KEEPER: WOODWARD DECISION ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: LEAVING SERVICE LATE IS SIMPLY COURTING DISASTER

THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: WOODWARD DECISION ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: LEAVING SERVICE LATE IS SIMPLY COURTING DISASTER

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

There is a brief report on Lawtel this morning showing that the decision in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch) has been overturned on appeal.   It highlights the dangers of leaving service of the claim form…

CLAIMANT OBTAINS  INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER DEFENDANT'S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: "BIMBLING" AND OTHER TALES OF MODERN LITIGATION

CLAIMANT OBTAINS INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER DEFENDANT’S LATE ACCEPTANCE OF PART 36 OFFER: “BIMBLING” AND OTHER TALES OF MODERN LITIGATION

July 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

On the Leigh Day website there is a link to a judgment of H.H.J Alan Gore QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in the case of Holmes -v- West London Mental Health NHS Turst (29th June 2018).  The judge…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 10: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DONE PROMPTLY: COURT REFUSES LATE APPLICATION - DENTON CRITERIA APPLIED

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 10: CHALLENGING THE AUTHENTICITY OF DOCUMENTS MUST BE DONE PROMPTLY: COURT REFUSES LATE APPLICATION – DENTON CRITERIA APPLIED

July 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a short addendum to the judgment of Lionel Persey QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Lloyd v Kruger [2018] EWHC 2011 (Comm). This deals with a very late application by the claimant to assert that documents were…

CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS "SIMPLY INCREDIBLE"

CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”

July 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT'S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: CLAIMANT'S "REASON TO BELIEVE":  A FEW POINTS TO WATCH

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT’S LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: CLAIMANT’S “REASON TO BELIEVE”: A FEW POINTS TO WATCH

July 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Default judgment,, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Setting aside judgment

In Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the issue of whether a claimant had “reason to believe” that a defendant did not live at the address…

PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN

PROVING THINGS 121: FAILING TO PROVE LOSS OF EARNINGS, AND THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHERE FUTURE TREATMENT IS UNCERTAIN

July 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

Yesterday I looked at  Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)  and the comments from the judge in relation to the joint statement of experts.  The case also contains interesting observations in relation to proving damages.  These are observations on matters…

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

EXPERTS, LAWYERS & THE JOINT REPORT (II): NO SUBSTANTIVE INPUT FROM LAWYERS PLEASE

July 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is the second case today looking at observations made in cases this week in relation to the joint meeting of experts. In BDW Trading Ltd v Integral Geotechnique (Wales) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1915 (TCC) HH Honour Judge Stephen Davies stated…

EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE

EXPERTS, LAWYERS AND THE JOINT-REPORT (1): JUST ONE AGENDA PLEASE

July 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Curiously there are two cases today that deal with the role of lawyers and the joint report.  The first I will look at is  the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in Welsh v Walsall Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1917 (QB)….

FIXED COSTS CONTINUE WHEN DEFENDANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

FIXED COSTS CONTINUE WHEN DEFENDANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

July 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe, solicitor, at Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment today in Hislop -v- Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726. KEY POINTS The Court of Appeal held that, in…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW: SERIES 3 PART 7: LADY JUSTICE MACUR: NOT DIVERTING FROM A SCRIPT AND STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE THAT POSE AS QUESTIONS

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 3 PART 7: LADY JUSTICE MACUR: NOT DIVERTING FROM A SCRIPT AND STATEMENTS OF PRINCIPLE THAT POSE AS QUESTIONS

July 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In this post I am recommending you read an interview with Lady Justice Macur by the Law Society “the art of good advocacy”. This is an interview following a seminar with the same name given in April 2016.  Remember these…

YOU LOST AT TRIAL - YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW...

YOU LOST AT TRIAL – YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SECOND GO: THE JUDGMENT IS HAIR TODAY AND WILL NOT BE GONE TOMORROW…

July 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Liqwd Inc & Anor v L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1845 (Pat) Mr Justice Birss refused a defendant’s application to “reopen the trial and decide one of the issues afresh” taking into account new evidence. “Many litigants, having…

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE...

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE…

July 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  FPH Law (a firm) v Brown (t/a Integrum Law) [2018] EWCA Civ 1629 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against a finding on a preliminary issue. There was a potential cause of action between two firms of solicitors…

COSTS BUDGETING AND PROPORTIONALITY:  JUST THE TICKET: JUDGE REJECTS COMPARISON WITH DEFENDANT'S BUDGET WHEN IT "JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE"

COSTS BUDGETING AND PROPORTIONALITY: JUST THE TICKET: JUDGE REJECTS COMPARISON WITH DEFENDANT’S BUDGET WHEN IT “JUST DOES NOT MAKE SENSE”

July 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

The issue of costs budgeting and proportionality was considered by Mr Justice Birss in Red and White Services Ltd v Phil Anslow Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 1699 (Ch).  The judge was prepared to take a robust approach to proportionality. There…

PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE "FALL BACK" POSITION

PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE “FALL BACK” POSITION

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Experts, Members Content

In  Moore & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2018] EWHC 1805 (TCC) Mr Justice Birss dismissed an appeal by the defendant against an award of £115,000 in damages.  It is a case about the appropriate assessment of damages when the defendant…

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Gary Brankin and Jeremy Rae  of BC Legal for providing more information about the decision in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, the court of Appeal decision on QOCS considered yesterday.  This is a point on…

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS "SUCCESSFUL" DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

July 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Risks of litigation

In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting.   The case provides…

PLEADING AND ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE CLAIMANT KNEW WHAT WAS COMING (ON THIS OCCASION)

PLEADING AND ARGUING FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE CLAIMANT KNEW WHAT WAS COMING (ON THIS OCCASION)

July 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Statements of Case

We have already looked at the factual findings in Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671. Of equal interest is that part of the judgment where the judge considered the claimant’s argument that the defendant should not be allowed to argue fundamental…

A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIM DISMISSED - SOCIAL MEDIA AND FACEBOOK PLAY A PART...

A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIM DISMISSED – SOCIAL MEDIA AND FACEBOOK PLAY A PART…

July 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

In Pinkus v Direct Line [2018] EWHC 1671 (QB) HHJ Coe (sitting as a judge of the High Court) found a claimant to be fundamentally dishonest. It is another example of how the courts can look at social media to come…

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION,  SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE - THIS IS THE CPR

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION, SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE – THIS IS THE CPR

July 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment, Skeleton arguments, Written advocacy

In TPE v Franks [2018] EWHC 1765 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles set aside a default judgment.  The case contains some important observations as to how the courts should consider an application to set aside a default judgment – considering…

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE - BOOK REVIEW: BUY IT AND READ IT: £30 WORTH SPENDING

SOLICITOR AND CLIENT COSTS: A PRACTICAL GUIDE – BOOK REVIEW: BUY IT AND READ IT: £30 WORTH SPENDING

July 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Book Review, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

Disputes  about costs between lawyers and their (former) clients can be “challenging”. Indeed they can be vitriolic and expensive.  The lawyer thinking “We’ve done the work” – the client thinking “how much” and “I got nothing out of it, why…

PROPORTIONAL COSTS IN A FATAL CASE: THE MATTERS THAT CAN  RECOVERED

PROPORTIONAL COSTS IN A FATAL CASE: THE MATTERS THAT CAN RECOVERED

July 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Proportionality

The facts in Powell & Ors v The Chief Constable of West Midlands Police [2018] EWHC B12 (Costs) are quite extraordinary.  This judgment, on the issue of costs, adds to the material relating to proportionality.  Equally important is the fact that…

COSTS: PHONE HACKING AND REPUTATION: PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SUMS AT STAKE

COSTS: PHONE HACKING AND REPUTATION: PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SUMS AT STAKE

July 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker addressed the elements of “proportionality”. “The rule does not prevent the recovery of costs in an amount greater than the…

BREACHING THE RULES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND THE CORRECT JUDGE TO HEAR THE APPEAL

BREACHING THE RULES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND THE CORRECT JUDGE TO HEAR THE APPEAL

July 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

There is much for the litigator to ponder in the Court of Appeal judgment in Broughal v Walsh Brothers Builders Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1610. Firstly how did the claimant come to be in a position when it breached…

COSTS & PROPORTIONALITY: ITS NOT ALL ABOUT THE MONEY: DEFENDANT'S COSTS WERE NOT DISPROPORTIONAL

COSTS & PROPORTIONALITY: ITS NOT ALL ABOUT THE MONEY: DEFENDANT’S COSTS WERE NOT DISPROPORTIONAL

July 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

Proportionality was the central issue in the judgment of Master Leonard in  Arjomandkhah v Nasrouallahi [2018] EWHC B11 (Costs). The Master rejected the claimant’s argument that the defendant’s costs (roughly one-third of the claimant’s costs budget) was disproportional. “In contrast to…

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF "ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR"

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF “ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR”

July 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Earlier posts have looked at the issue of aggressive correspondence. Others have looked at the issues of conduct, refusal to mediate and questions relating to indemnity costs. I am grateful to David Turner QC for drawing my attention to a…

PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : "IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY"

PROVING THINGS 119: WITNESSES & EXPERTS : “IN A CASE OF FAIRLY REMARKABLE REPORTS, THIS WAS THE MOST EXTRAORDINARY”

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

 If you want to see an example of problematic witness statements, and even more problematic expert witnesses, then read the judgment of Mrs Justice Jefford DBE in Castle Trustee Ltd & Ors v Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2018] EWHC 1602 (TCC). …

PROVING THINGS 118: IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR DOESN'T KNOW HOW TO PROVE THINGS: "THAT FINAL SENTENCE WAS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING"

PROVING THINGS 118: IT SEEMS THAT EVEN THE LORD CHANCELLOR DOESN’T KNOW HOW TO PROVE THINGS: “THAT FINAL SENTENCE WAS BOTH INACCURATE AND MISLEADING”

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

A body charged with the delivery of legal services to some of the most vulnerable people in our society (and which, incidentally, is in charge of the justice system) should  be making decisions that are logical and justifiable – you…

HOURLY RATES AND COMPLEX CASES: MASTER MAY HAVE APPLIED THE WRONG TEST BUT CAME TO THE RIGHT RESULT

HOURLY RATES AND COMPLEX CASES: MASTER MAY HAVE APPLIED THE WRONG TEST BUT CAME TO THE RIGHT RESULT

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In JXA v Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1747 (QB) Mr Justice Goss rejected an appeal in relation to hourly rates of the claimant’s solicitor in a high value clinical negligence case. THE CASE The claimant had been…

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Limitation, Members Content, Sanctions

In the judgment today in  Atha & Co Solicitors v Liddle [2018] EWHC 1751 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of whether a failure to pay the correct fee on the issue of proceedings meant that a claim was…

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE'S VIEW SERIES 3 PART 6: MAY IT PLEASE YOU, MADAM: STORIES THAT EVERY LITIGATOR NEEDS TO KNOW...

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3 PART 6: MAY IT PLEASE YOU, MADAM: STORIES THAT EVERY LITIGATOR NEEDS TO KNOW…

July 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Book Review, Bundles, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In the sixth in this series we a looking at “May it please you Madam” by retired District Judge Neil Hickman.  This is not designed as a guide for advocates, indeed the subtitle is “A little book of legal whimsy”. …

THE "TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS": INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON

THE “TRUE VOICE OF THE WITNESSES ARE NOTABLY LACKING FROM THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS”: INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME & COSTS SPENT FOR NO GOOD REASON

July 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Estera Trust (Jersey) Ltd & Anor v Singh & Ors [2018] EWHC 1715 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some telling observations about the usefulness of witness statements prepared for the case.  This is a common observation in relation to witness…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS EMAILED SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL  & SPOKE TO THIRD PARTIES WHILST IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS EMAILED SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL & SPOKE TO THIRD PARTIES WHILST IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE

July 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Conduct, Members Content, Striking out

NB THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1 In Hughes Jarvis Limited v Searle [2018] EW Misc B6 (CC) Her Honour Judge Clarke struck out the claimant’s case…

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS "MALICIOUS": PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

July 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…

"CHANGE IN THE LAW" JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

“CHANGE IN THE LAW” JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the Court of Appeal in QR (Pakistan), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413.   The fact that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme…

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Hugh Cartwright & Amin v Devoy-Williams & Anor [2018] EWHC 1692 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies MBE (sitting with an assessor) overturned a decision of a Master where counsel’s brief fee was reduced because the matter had settled the afternoon…

COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS

COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Useful links

Last week I set out the responses on Twitter about professional courtesy and conduct.  This is a good opportunity to recap on the four posts on this subject. “AGGRESSIVE CORRESPONDENCE” AND EFFECTIVE LITIGATION: ARE THE TWO SYNONYMOUS OR DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED…

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Proportionality

In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered.   “It would be quite wrong…

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT?  RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A "MEDICAL REPORT" WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report.  The judge,…

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS - BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS – BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

In Drury v Rafique & Anor [2018] EWHC 1527 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss gave important guidance to those thinking of appealing a judgment on the basis of inadequate reasons. It is dangerous for an appellant to appeal on this grounds without…

AGGRESSIVE INTER-SOLICITOR CORRESPONDENCE: PISTOLS AT DAWN & THE DANGERS OF TALKING ON TRAINS: LESSONS FROM TWITTER

AGGRESSIVE INTER-SOLICITOR CORRESPONDENCE: PISTOLS AT DAWN & THE DANGERS OF TALKING ON TRAINS: LESSONS FROM TWITTER

July 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

Earlier this week I tweeted a link to earlier posts on this blog “aggressive correspondence”.  The responses on Twitter make for interesting  (and entertaining) reading.  The legal Twitterati provide quite a few lessons here – from the art of brevity…

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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 40: “A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF REGULATORY FAILURE”: CHAIR OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CONSUMER PANEL PULLS NO PUNCHES…
  • PART 35 QUESTIONS AND AGENDAS FOR EXPERT MEETINGS – A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS AND EXPERTS: WEBINAR 3rd DECEMBER 2025
  • “SECOND APPEALS” FROM THE CIRCUIT JUDGE: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR APPEAL AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA APPLIED?
  • COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, CONTINUING BREACHES AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL
  • AIRLINE’S ATTEMPT TO “CHALLENGE JURISDICTION” FAILS TO TAKE OFF: “I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFENDANT HAS DEFENDED THIS ACTION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS”

Top Posts

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 39 : CASE ALLEGING NEGLIGENCE IN PLEADING DISMISSED - BECAUSE IT WAS NOT FULLY PLEADED (AND DID NOT ESTABLISH BREACH IN ANY EVENT)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 40: "A DAMNING INDICTMENT OF REGULATORY FAILURE": CHAIR OF THE LEGAL SERVICES CONSUMER PANEL PULLS NO PUNCHES...
  • AIRLINE'S ATTEMPT TO "CHALLENGE JURISDICTION" FAILS TO TAKE OFF: "I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFENDANT HAS DEFENDED THIS ACTION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS"
  • COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDERS, CONTINUING BREACHES AND CONTEMPT OF COURT: AN INDIVIDUAL RESPONDENT WOULD HAVE GONE TO JAIL
  • COST BITES 311: YES THIS CASE WAS COST BUDGETED (AND THE PAYING PARTIES AGREED THE BUDGET): "ONLY THE CLAIMANTS CAN CATEGORICALLY ATTEST WHETHER THEY AGREED THE DEFENDANTS' BUDGET TACTICALLY OR NOT"

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, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.