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 » Page 2
THE BALLAD OF READING COUNTY COURT LIFT: THIS IS A TRAGEDY NOT A COMEDY

THE BALLAD OF READING COUNTY COURT LIFT: THIS IS A TRAGEDY NOT A COMEDY

May 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Members Content

The earlier post about the Twitter account of  broken lift in Reading County Court has already led to a lot of responses.  This is a battle being fought with humour, however its consequences are serious, profoundly serious.  Many people have…

THE BALLAD OF READING COUNTY COURT LIFT:  THE LIFT WITH ITS OWN TWITTER ACCOUNT - AN ESCALATING PROBLEM

THE BALLAD OF READING COUNTY COURT LIFT: THE LIFT WITH ITS OWN TWITTER ACCOUNT – AN ESCALATING PROBLEM

May 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Members Content, Useful links

Last week I went to Reading County Court.  This was a new court to me and I asked the Legal Twitterati for directions (“out of the station turn left at Snappy Snaps”, for anyone who needs to know). What was…

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF: DEFENDANT APPEALS: APPEAL DISMISSED: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE POST OFFICE SAGA:  ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT "IN TERROREM" SHOULD BE EXPLAINED

JUDGE REFUSES TO RECUSE HIMSELF: DEFENDANT APPEALS: APPEAL DISMISSED: ANOTHER ROUND IN THE POST OFFICE SAGA: ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM” SHOULD BE EXPLAINED

May 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

I did not blog, immediately, after the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 4) [2019] EWHC 871 (QB because I suspected (indeed it was inevitable, given its approach to this litigation) that the Post Office would…

COSTS, COSTS LAWYERS, RESERVED AND UNRESERVED ACTIVITIES: PAYING PARTIES' ARGUMENTS LARGELY UNSUCCESSFUL

COSTS, COSTS LAWYERS, RESERVED AND UNRESERVED ACTIVITIES: PAYING PARTIES’ ARGUMENTS LARGELY UNSUCCESSFUL

May 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

In  Allen v Brethertons LLP [2019] EWHC B3 (Costs) Master Leonard determined that the work done by a cost lawyer, and the team working with her, were recoverable costs.  I am grateful to Mark Carlisle for drawing my attention to…

INNS OF COURT TO DELIVER THE BAR COURSE AT 30% REDUCTION IN PRICE (BUT ONLY IN LONDON...)

INNS OF COURT TO DELIVER THE BAR COURSE AT 30% REDUCTION IN PRICE (BUT ONLY IN LONDON…)

May 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Education, Members Content

Ever since I found out that prospective pupils are told by some chambers to read this blog in advance of pupillage interviews I have felt a duty to look after these involuntary readers when I can.  I have been sent…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: WHY A DAY EARLY IS SO VERY DIFFERENT TO A DAY LATE: THE ROBERT CRITERIA

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: WHY A DAY EARLY IS SO VERY DIFFERENT TO A DAY LATE: THE ROBERT CRITERIA

May 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a world of different between a prospective and retrospective application to extend time, or comply with an order.   Every litigator has to know about Robert -v- Momentum Services [2003] EWCA Civ 229.  An application made in advance means that the…

FATAL ACCIDENTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BEREAVEMENT PAYMENTS :  ADVANCE NOTICE FOR LECTURES LATER IN THE YEAR (AND  A NEW EDITION OF A BOOK...)

FATAL ACCIDENTS: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BEREAVEMENT PAYMENTS : ADVANCE NOTICE FOR LECTURES LATER IN THE YEAR (AND A NEW EDITION OF A BOOK…)

May 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Damages, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Rule Changes

The government is, at long last, putting forward a draft remedial order to amend Section 1A of the Fatal Accidents Act 1976.  This would allow cohabitees, who have been living together for more than two years, to recover the statutory…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

May 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Price -v-  Cwm Taf University Health Board  [2019] EWHC 938 (QB).   A transcript of the case is available on the…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 42: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS

May 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

This post arises out of a Twitter discussion. Someone was reporting that documents that had been disclosed during the course of  ongoing litigation were being put  copied onto  social media. Is this allowed? THE RULES: NON-DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS This is…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 41: SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF A PART 36 OFFER: CPR 36.8

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 41: SEEKING CLARIFICATION OF A PART 36 OFFER: CPR 36.8

May 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

The decision in Calonne Construction Ltd v Dawnus Southern Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 754 , looked at earlier in this blog highlighted one part of CPR Part 36 that often goes unnoticed.  It is important that a recipient of a Part 36 offer…

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE "BIASED"...

WHEN THINGS GO WRONG FOR A DEFENDANT AT TRIAL: FOUR LESSONS FROM ONE CASE: WHEN YOU HAVE AN EXPERT WHO STATES THEY ARE “BIASED”…

May 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Hanbury & Anor v Hugh James Solicitors (a firm) [2019] EWHC 1074 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip found that a firm of solicitors had been negligent in its conduct of a fatal accident case.  There are a number of lessons…

DEFENDANT'S PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD OFFER THAT REFERRED TO UNPLEADED COUNTERCLAIM AND SOUGHT 8% INTEREST AFTER EXPIRY

DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD OFFER THAT REFERRED TO UNPLEADED COUNTERCLAIM AND SOUGHT 8% INTEREST AFTER EXPIRY

May 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Calonne Construction Ltd v Dawnus Southern Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 754 the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a defendant’s Part 36 offer was a valid one. The offer related to a counterclaim that had yet to be…

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…

← Previous 1 2

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

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYED? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)

Top Posts

  • COST (MEGA) BITES 378: WHO WOULD SPEND £15,751,483 PLUS VAT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OF £16.91? (WELCOME TO THE SURREAL WORLD OF "COLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS": THE CAT ARE CONCERNED THAT LITIGATION IS BEING BROUGHT FOR THE LAWYERS & FUNDERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS
  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS - BUT... : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 2: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PD57AC: "HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS"

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.