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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • CAN THE WORDING OF A COVERING LETTER ENCLOSING TERMS OF BUSINESS FROM A SOLICITOR TO A CLIENT GIVE RISE TO AN ESTOPPEL SO AS TO PREVENT RELIANCE ON THOSE TERMS?
  • CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ISSUE A CLAIM FORM? CAN THE STAFF LAWFULLY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE JUDGE? AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
  • COST BITES 412: SHOULD THE CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO GIVE FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE ON AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT LEAD TO THE DEFENDANTS RECOVERING INDEMNITY COSTS: CONDUCT CONSIDERED
  • WAS A SOLICITOR’S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION “REASONABLE”: COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?
  • WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES – BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE “HOSTILE”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.