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 » 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, Members Content

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, Members Content, 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…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN DOES THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTS JUSTIFY AN ADVERSE INFERENCE ON SUMMARY JUDGMENT? IS THE WITNESS EVIDENCE DEFINITIVE?
  • WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE… ABOUT WITNESSES GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT THINGS SAID MANY YEARS AGO ? 10 KEY POINTS ON WITNESS EVIDENCE WITH USEFUL LINKS
  • WHO IS A PARTY AFFECTED BY A SUMMARY JUDGMENT? THE CPR; CRYPTOCURRENCY; DELAY IN APPLYING AND THE MERITS OF THE CASE CONSIDERED IN A COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY
  • GUIDE TO FATAL ACCIDENTS 5th EDITION: PUBLISHED LATER THIS YEAR: AVAILABLE TO PRE-ORDER
  • SUPREME COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS AMENDED: REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS, BUNDLES, COURT DRESS AND DRAFT ORDERS: WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE

Top Posts

CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE...
SUPREME COURT PRACTICE DIRECTIONS AMENDED: REPLIES TO OBJECTIONS, BUNDLES, COURT DRESS AND DRAFT ORDERS: WHAT THIS MEANS IN PRACTICE
WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES - CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
EXPERT WATCH 73: AN "AD HOMINEM ATTACK" ON A PARTY'S EXPERT FAILS TO IMPRESS THE JUDGE
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: DOCUMENTS ARE ADMISSIBLE WHEN THEY ARE IN AN AGREED TRIAL OR APPLICATION BUNDLE BUT...

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.