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 » May » 02
LAWYERS, DEADLINES AND PROCRASTINATION: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? ("A DEADLINE... THAT IS ALL")

LAWYERS, DEADLINES AND PROCRASTINATION: HOW DO YOU DEAL WITH IT? (“A DEADLINE… THAT IS ALL”)

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Useful links, Well being

Many of the cases that appear on this blog, particularly those dealing with sanctions and service, arise because things are left to the very last minute. We have looked before at lawyers and procrastination.  I thought that perhaps this is…

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN "INTERIM" APPLICATION

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN “INTERIM” APPLICATION

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose    for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Carr in Parsa -v- D.S. Smith PLC (25th March 2019)  Parsa v D.S. Smith PLC – Approved Judgment -…

ASSESSING EVIDENCE  26 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: THE JUDICIAL APPROACH

ASSESSING EVIDENCE 26 YEARS AFTER THE EVENT: THE JUDICIAL APPROACH

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Taylor v Chesterfield Royal Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1043 (Ch) John Kimbell QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered the question of assessing evidence of a brief incident, 26 years after the event, in a case…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 40: HOW CIVIL JUDGES DECIDE CASES

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 40: HOW CIVIL JUDGES DECIDE CASES

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Knight & Anor v Knight & Ors [2019] EWHC 915 (Ch) HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) set out a summary of how civil judges decide cases. It is a useful reminder to all of those involved…

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

  • YOU CAN’T SIMPLY WITHDRAW AN APPEAL WITHOUT PERMISSION: APPELLANT SEEKS TO WITHDRAW APPEAL & DOESN’T ATTEND – BUT THE APPEAL GOES AHEAD AND THE APPELLANT WINS …
  • PROVING THINGS 305 : DEFENDANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH ANY BREACHES AND (IN ANY EVENT) HAD MADE A PROFIT HERE NOT A LOSS: IF YOU PLEAD DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO PROVE THEM
  • SERVICE POINTS 59: AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DID NOT EXTEND TIME FOR THE CLAIM FORM: NEITHER DID THE ACTUAL STRIKING OUT OF THE ACTION…
  • THERE HAS NOT BEEN FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: THE DIFFICULTIES WHEN LITIGATION SPANS SEVERAL JURISDICTIONS: “THE SUPPOSED EXPLANATIONS BELATEDLY OFFERED … AMOUNT TO LITTLE MORE THAN AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE FAILING WITH A RATHER LAME CONFESSION OF INABILITY TO EXPLAIN HOW OR WHY IT OCCURRED”
  • MI5: CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTERNAL REPORTS: THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING: A POINT OF GENERAL RELEVANCE NOT JUST SECRET AGENTS…

Top Posts

FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
YOU CAN'T SIMPLY WITHDRAW AN APPEAL WITHOUT PERMISSION: APPELLANT SEEKS TO WITHDRAW APPEAL & DOESN'T ATTEND - BUT THE APPEAL GOES AHEAD AND THE APPELLANT WINS ...
THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT

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.