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 » March » 16
THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS

THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

For the third time today I am writing about the case of Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB). However we are now looking at the earlier interlocutory application by the defendant to strike out large parts…

CASE MANAGEMENT, "RELEVANCE" AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT "IN TERROREM": MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Conduct, Members Content

I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual.   This part…

ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHEN POST OFFICE WITNESSES DO NOT DELIVER

ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHEN POST OFFICE WITNESSES DO NOT DELIVER

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) is 1122 paragraphs long, following a two week long trial.  There are aspects of this case I will look at again. However, it is interesting…

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME: ADVICE FROM M' LEARNED FRIEND: "DON'T PANIC" AND BE TOTALLY CLEAR IN WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME: ADVICE FROM M’ LEARNED FRIEND: “DON’T PANIC” AND BE TOTALLY CLEAR IN WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Limitation, Members Content

In his post yesterday Agreeing An Extension to the Limitation Period Nigel Poole QC dealt with some of the issues arising from the judgment in  Cowan v Foreman and ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) where Mostyn J suggested it was not possible for the…

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT'S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT'S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT’S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT’S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Hamad M. Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 574 (TCC)  Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart expressed concern about an attack on the credibility of an expert witness.  In that case there was no evidence to support an assertion that…

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

  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT – AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE’S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
COST BITES 466: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS ABILITY TO AWARD INTEREST ON COSTS TO LITIGANTS CONDUCTING LITIGATION ON A CFA

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.