One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- A REMINDER: WEBINAR ON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR (AND HOW TO AVOID SOLICITORS BREAKING THE CRIMINAL LAW WHEN USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF): 3rd OCTOBER 2025
- WHEN A WITNESS COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: A STATEMENT PREPARED SO BADLY THAT AN ADJOURNMENT WAS NECESSARY
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVING EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 12 1/2 YEARS PREVIOUSLY (AND SOME OF THEM WERE CHILDREN)
- AI USED IN THE WRITING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION: READ ALL ABOUT IT…
- ISSUING AN INJUNCTION MEANS “PROCEEDINGS” ARE UNDERWAY AND THE CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY THE COSTS AFTER IT WAS SET ASIDE: ALLOWING THE CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS IN THIS APPEAL WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO COMMONSENSE”
Top Posts
- A REMINDER: WEBINAR ON THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR (AND HOW TO AVOID SOLICITORS BREAKING THE CRIMINAL LAW WHEN USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF): 3rd OCTOBER 2025
- THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF... WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025
- WHEN A WITNESS COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: A STATEMENT PREPARED SO BADLY THAT AN ADJOURNMENT WAS NECESSARY
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN PEOPLE ARE GIVING EVIDENCE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED 12 1/2 YEARS PREVIOUSLY (AND SOME OF THEM WERE CHILDREN)
- AI USED IN THE WRITING OF A JUDICIAL DECISION: READ ALL ABOUT IT...
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Great opening line to the judgment, but I’m not sure that I agree with his conclusions on vicarious liability. Did Counsel draw his attention to Barclays Bank v Various Claimants [2018] EWCA Civ 1670 I wonder? Also, points i) and v) were considered unimportant by the SC in Cox v MoJ, hence he ought instead to have attached greater significance to points ii) to iv).