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 » August » 09
COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE'S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE "BUILDING BLOCKS" OF FACT FINDING

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE “BUILDING BLOCKS” OF FACT FINDING

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Attempts to appeal findings of fact are extremely common, so common that I have stopped writing about them.  There is also a common theme – the judge should not have found that, says the appellant: it was a finding open…

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST IF SOMEONE APPLIES  IN ADVANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER? HIGH COURT DECISION

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST IF SOMEONE APPLIES IN ADVANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER? HIGH COURT DECISION

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd [2019] EWHC 2078 (TCC) Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered the appropriate test to be applied when the court made a peremptory order and an application was…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN WITNESS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE SERVED LATE : EXPLAIN DELAY EVEN IF THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR IT

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN WITNESS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE SERVED LATE : EXPLAIN DELAY EVEN IF THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR IT

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Castle Trustees Ltd -v-Bombay Palace Restaurant Ltd [2017] EWHC 3893 (TCC) Mrs Justice Jefford allowed the defendant’s application for relief from sanctions when the defendant served witness and expert evidence late. This case is interesting for a number of…

NO COSTS ORDER AGAINST SOLICITORS OR COUNSEL WHO WERE ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS

NO COSTS ORDER AGAINST SOLICITORS OR COUNSEL WHO WERE ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Wasted Costs

In  Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 2183 (Ch) Lady Justice Rose dismissed an application for costs against solicitors and counsel who had represented an unsuccessful party on a conditional fee basis. “… there is a strong public interest…

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

  • THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: USEFUL GUIDANCE AND AN ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST WHEN MAKING AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT…
  • A COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE: ANOTHER CASE THAT EMPHASISES THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT THESE APPLICATIONS: A LAWYER CANNOT SIMPLY PROMOTE A “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BUT MOST ACT OBJECTIVELY AND CAREFULLY
  • THE REPLY: THE THEME OF THE DAY: SIX USEFUL CHECKLISTS: MAKING SURE YOUR PLEADING DOESN’T FAIL THE BASIC TESTS
  • DRAFTING A DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: SOME IMPORTANT POINTS: YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CPR 16 AND DO IT FULLY AND PROPERLY
  • DRAFTING A REPLY: WHAT IT SHOULD CONTAIN AND WHAT IT SHOULD NOT: THE KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED

Top Posts

THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS...)
EXPERT WATCH 71: "I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE": THE EXPERT WAS "ADVOCATING" AND "HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL"
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS
CLAIM AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS STRUCK OUT: THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN...

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.