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 » 03
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…

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

  • 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
  • "SECOND APPEALS" FROM THE CIRCUIT JUDGE: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR APPEAL AND WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA APPLIED?
  • PART 35 QUESTIONS AND AGENDAS FOR EXPERT MEETINGS - A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS AND EXPERTS: WEBINAR 3rd DECEMBER 2025

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.