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 » July » 09
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…

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

  • CAN THE WORDING OF A COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING TERMS OF BUSINESS FROM A SOLICITOR TO A CLIENT GIVE RISE TO AN ESTOPPEL SO AS TO PREVENT RELIANCE ON THOSE TERMS?
  • CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ISSUE A CLAIM FORM? CAN THE STAFF LAWFULLY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE JUDGE? AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
  • COST BITES 412: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO GIVE FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE ON AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT LEAD TO THE DEFENDANTS RECOVERING INDEMNITY COSTS: CONDUCT CONSIDERED
  • WAS A SOLICITOR’S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION “REASONABLE”: COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?
  • WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES – BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE “HOSTILE”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.