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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A DEFENDANT TENANT SPEAKING AT A POSSESSION HEARING JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT FILED A DEFENCE: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES HAVE PRIMACY OVER A PEREMPTORY ORDER
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”

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.