Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2019 » February » 06
SERVICE OF CLAIM FORM BY EMAIL ALLOWED: THE SAFEGUARDS TO RESPONDENTS TO WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS.

SERVICE OF CLAIM FORM BY EMAIL ALLOWED: THE SAFEGUARDS TO RESPONDENTS TO WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS.

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Injunctions, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

The case and issues in Linklaters LLP -v- Mellish [2019] EWHC 177 (QB) have already made the headlines.   The procedural aspects of the decision are also of interest. Firstly Mr Justice Warby made an order allowing service of the claim form…

PERIODICAL PAYMENTS, ASBESTOS CASES AND THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: AMBUSH IS TO BE AVOIDED

PERIODICAL PAYMENTS, ASBESTOS CASES AND THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: AMBUSH IS TO BE AVOIDED

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

In the judgment today in  Howard v The Imperial London Hotels Ltd [2019] EWHC 202 (QB)  Master Thornett had to consider whether periodical payments were suitable for someone with a very short life expectancy.  The judgment is a  careful and sensitive…

PROVING THINGS 140: SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE A "LOSS OF CHANCE"

PROVING THINGS 140: SPECULATIVE EVIDENCE NOT ENOUGH TO PROVE A “LOSS OF CHANCE”

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

In Dymoke v Association for Dance Movement Pyschotherapy UK Ltd [2019] EWHC 94 (QB) Mr Justice Popplewell found that a claimant had not adduced sufficient evidence to prove a “loss of chance” in a claim for damages.  This shows that a…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Wulwik in Roman -v- AXA Insurance PLC (13/12/2018).   Roman v AXA Insurance [2018] (1) The judge found that a CFA with…

BEING A LITIGATOR "WHAT I'D TELL A YOUNGER ME": THE SECRET BARRISTER'S SELF-DEFENCE INSTRUCTOR: SARAH ROBSON

BEING A LITIGATOR “WHAT I’D TELL A YOUNGER ME”: THE SECRET BARRISTER’S SELF-DEFENCE INSTRUCTOR: SARAH ROBSON

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Members Content, What I'd tell a younger me

The aim of this series is to give an insight into the experiences of a wide range of people involved in litigation.  This interview, however, posed a unique problem: how do you interview someone with a black belt in Taekwando?…

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

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.