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. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2019 » July
COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF DEFENCE - SIDESTEPPING THE LATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE ARGUMENT: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIES

COURT ENTERS JUDGMENT IN DEFAULT OF DEFENCE – SIDESTEPPING THE LATE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE ARGUMENT: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIES

July 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

 In Hanson & Ors v Carlino & Anor [2019] EWHC 1940 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk neatly sidestepped the vexed question of when a claimant can enter judgment in default of acknowledgement of service by entering judgment in default of defence. …

WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT "BE PREPARED": MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT “BE PREPARED”: MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

July 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs

I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Leonard in PME -v- The Scout Association (30/07/2019).    1. JUDGMENT PME (003).  This deals with two issues (i) the jurisdiction of…

JOB ADVERTISEMENT: IMMIGRATION CASEWORKER/SOLICITOR - BASED IN SHEFFIELD.

JOB ADVERTISEMENT: IMMIGRATION CASEWORKER/SOLICITOR – BASED IN SHEFFIELD.

July 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Job Advert

I am continuing to advertise voluntary sector jobs whilst Nearly Legal is on pause.  This job is in Sheffield. ATLEU job vacancy – Immigration Caseworker/Solicitor Salary:               £21,000 to £27,000 p/a (depending on experience…

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 4: AVIATION, PLANES, AIRPORTS AND BALLOONS: VICIOUS RULES APPLY

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 4: AVIATION, PLANES, AIRPORTS AND BALLOONS: VICIOUS RULES APPLY

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Personal Injury

This is the fourth in the series. The purpose of this post is to make you feel really uncomfortable when you are involved with a case that involves aviation and personal injury, in any way shape or form. Including when…

THE GESTMIN PRINCIPLES IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: JUDGE DOUBTS WHETHER THEY CAN BE DIRECTLY APPLIED IN OTHER CONTEXTS

THE GESTMIN PRINCIPLES IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE: JUDGE DOUBTS WHETHER THEY CAN BE DIRECTLY APPLIED IN OTHER CONTEXTS

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Witness statements

This blog has looked, many times, at the judicial assessment of evidence, particularly witness evidence.  Often this is done by reference to the “Gestmin” criteria. In CXB -v-North West Anglia NHS Foundation Trust, [2019] EWHC 2053 (QB) HH Judge Gore…

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME : THEY CAN BE A GOOD THING - BUT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME : THEY CAN BE A GOOD THING – BUT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time

In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 the Court of Appeal were far more supportive of the idea that parties in Inheritance Act claims could agree a “limitation amnesty”.  However an agreement has to be drafted with…

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs

I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of consent order made in the Court of Appeal.   The Court allowed an appeal, by consent, that the defendant to certain applications was only allowed fixed costs in an…

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 3: 10 MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 3: 10 MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW

July 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation

Here we look at ten “myths” (that is misconceptions) about limitation that can lead to personal injury litigators getting into difficulties. Myth 1:  In a breach of contract case the limitation period is six years.  This is clearly a prevalent…

JOB ADVERT: DISCRIMINATION LEGAL ADVISOR: SUFFOLK LAW CENTRE.

JOB ADVERT: DISCRIMINATION LEGAL ADVISOR: SUFFOLK LAW CENTRE.

July 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice

Suffolk Law Centre has a job vacancy. The details are below.   The vacancy can also be viewed online here.  Tackling Discrimination in the East   Part-Time Discrimination Legal Advisor   Job Share: 22.2 Hours (specific times by agreement)   Salary:          …

CLAIMANT'S PART 36 "SUBJECT TO A NIL CRU" WAS A VALID OFFER: IF THE DEFENDANT WAS CONFUSED THEY SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION

CLAIMANT’S PART 36 “SUBJECT TO A NIL CRU” WAS A VALID OFFER: IF THE DEFENDANT WAS CONFUSED THEY SHOULD HAVE SOUGHT CLARIFICATION

July 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Part 36

The judgment of District Judge Hickinbottom in Gibbons -v- Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (o4/06/2019), discussed in an earlier post, also has an interesting section in relation to a Part 36 offer. “It seems to me the Defendant could…

CASE FALLING OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: ASSAULT BY A VULNERABLE ADULT: REPORT OF A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION: FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY

CASE FALLING OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: ASSAULT BY A VULNERABLE ADULT: REPORT OF A FIRST INSTANCE DECISION: FIXED COSTS DO NOT APPLY

July 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Costs, Fixed Costs

I am grateful to solicitor John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Hickinbottom in Gibbons -v- Rotherham Doncaster and South Humber NHS Foundation Trust (o4/06/2019).  It concerns the question of whether an assault by…

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 2: HOW DO YOU MISS THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD?

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 2: HOW DO YOU MISS THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD?

July 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Personal Injury

This series looks at avoiding negligence claims in litigation, personal injury litigation in particular.  The easiest (and most common) method of a negligence claim is missing the limitation period. How does anyone miss a three year limitation period?  The basic…

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE'S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

July 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Witness statements

In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable.  (The judgment also reviews the authorities…

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES - A MUST AT TRIAL - A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES...)

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES – A MUST AT TRIAL – A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES…)

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles

  There was much excitement about the rules changes so that bundles for applications and trials should be double-sided.  However nothing is consistent in legal procedure. I am grateful to barrister Matt Jackson for sending me a (highly redacted) copy…

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals

In Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337 the Court of Appeal reviewed the principles relating to new matters being raised on appeal.     “These authorities show that there is no general rule that a case…

RECOVERING THE COST OF ATTENDING THE INQUEST: MUST BE BOTH RELEVANT AND PROPORTIONATE (BUT PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT MONEY)

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Fatal Accidents, Proportionality

The judgment today in Fullick & Ors v The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1941 (QB) deals with the, often challenging, question of whether the costs of attending an inquest is recoverable in cases where the claimant…

LEGAL AID MATTERS: SUCH A WONDERFUL LITTLE BOOK - A REVIEW OF 70 YEARS OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF LEGAL AID TO OUR SOCIETY

LEGAL AID MATTERS: SUCH A WONDERFUL LITTLE BOOK – A REVIEW OF 70 YEARS OF THE CONTRIBUTION OF LEGAL AID TO OUR SOCIETY

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Book Review

This small, but important, book from the Justice Alliance is (I imagine) deliberately designed to resemble the campaigning pamphlets that used to be an essential part of public and political debate.  It was printed by the Legal Action Group and…

THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE:  LINKS TO THE NEW SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: LINKS TO THE NEW SUPPLEMENTARY TABLES

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Damages, Useful links

The change in the discount rate has led to the Government Actuary’s Department producing supplementary tables which include the – 0.25% rate.  The relevant page can be found here.   LINKS TO THE TABLES Actuarial tables for use in personal…

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN "SPECIFICALLY MENTION"

DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: MENTION MUST MEAN “SPECIFICALLY MENTION”

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Witness statements

The judgment in Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) also considered, and rejected, the claimant’s application for specific disclosure of documents.  Mr Justice Warby held that for an order to be made under CPR 31.15 there must be…

COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

COURT REFUSES TO MAKE ORDER THAT A DEFENDANT DISCLOSES FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

July 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Disclosure

In Rudd v Bridle & Anor [2019] EWHC 1986 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application for disclosure of the defendants’ funding arrangements.   “Beyond this is the common-sense point, that the Court will not be keen to allow…

1 2 … 4 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. 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 31,358 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • CROWING OVER COSTS IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR A LITIGANT: A REMINDER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
  • THE ABSENCE OF A REPLY TO A DEFENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE ACCOUNT IN THE DEFENCE WAS ACCEPTED
  • PROVING THINGS 250: FAILING TO PROVE IMPECUNIOSITY: A BARE ASSERTION IS NOT ADEQUATE
  • PROVING THINGS 249: APPELLANT FAILS TO PROVE LACK OF CAPACITY: SHORTFALLS WITH THE EXPERT EVIDENCE
  • COSTS BITES 73: IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION THE APPLICANTS FAILED TO GET PAST THE FIRST STAGE

Top Posts & Pages

  • CROWING OVER COSTS IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR A LITIGANT: A REMINDER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA
  • "WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A WITNESS STATEMENT AND SUBSTANTIVE SUBMISSIONS"
  • THE ABSENCE OF A REPLY TO A DEFENCE DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT COULD BE ASSUMED THAT THE ACCOUNT IN THE DEFENCE WAS ACCEPTED
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE FOR FACTS: KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS (AND WHY IT MATTERS)
  • PROVING THINGS 250: FAILING TO PROVE IMPECUNIOSITY: A BARE ASSERTION IS NOT ADEQUATE

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

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • 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 © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin