Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » 2019 » February » 16
COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the defendant’s application to declare inadmissible part of an expert report and a joint expert report.  It was held that the principles in Rogers -v- Hoyle are of general…

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23,007 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • GOING BANKRUPT DID NOT RELEASE BANKRUPT FROM A JUDGMENT DEBT: JUDGE GIVES PERMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE DESPITE A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY
  • PROVING THINGS 205: COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO £6,922,532 IN FEES BUT WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
  • “WHAT’S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF?” WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? 10 KEY POINTS RE-VISITED
  • SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: DELAY, FAILING TO KNOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE AND ABSENCE OF MERITS: LORD CHANCELLOR WINS THE DAY…
  • “DENTON PROOFING” YOUR PERSONAL INJURY PRACTICE – KNOWING WHERE THINGS GO WRONG AND PUTTING THEM RIGHT: WEBINAR 11th MARCH 2021

Top Posts & Pages

  • PROVING THINGS 205: COUNSEL NOT ENTITLED TO £6,922,532 IN FEES BUT WERE ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
  • SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: DELAY, FAILING TO KNOW THE CORRECT PROCEDURE AND ABSENCE OF MERITS: LORD CHANCELLOR WINS THE DAY...
  • "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF?" WHY IS THIS IMPORTANT? 10 KEY POINTS RE-VISITED
  • GOING BANKRUPT DID NOT RELEASE BANKRUPT FROM A JUDGMENT DEBT: JUDGE GIVES PERMISSION FOR ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE DESPITE A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY
  • “DENTON PROOFING” YOUR PERSONAL INJURY PRACTICE - KNOWING WHERE THINGS GO WRONG AND PUTTING THEM RIGHT: WEBINAR 11th MARCH 2021

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin