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 » 21
JOB VACANCY :  HEAD OF LEGAL PRACTICE AT ANTI TRAFFICKING AND LABOUR EXPLOITATION UNIT

JOB VACANCY : HEAD OF LEGAL PRACTICE AT ANTI TRAFFICKING AND LABOUR EXPLOITATION UNIT

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Members Content

ATLEU job vacancy – Head of Legal Practice Hours:             35 per week (flexible and part-time working considered) Salary:             circa £36,000 plus 5% employer pension contribution Leave:    …

DE MINIMIS BREACH OF RULES DID NOT LEAD TO PART 36 OFFER BEING INVALID

DE MINIMIS BREACH OF RULES DID NOT LEAD TO PART 36 OFFER BEING INVALID

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Momonakaya v the Ministry of Defence [2019] EWHC 480 (QB) HHJ Blair QC considered whether a claimant had properly accepted a Part 36 offer.  It was held that an offer that breached the rules in a de minimis way was…

WHEN THE COURT LOSES IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE COURTS: "CIVIL JUSTICE: 2019 STYLE"

WHEN THE COURT LOSES IMPORTANT DOCUMENTS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PROBLEMS IN THE COURTS: “CIVIL JUSTICE: 2019 STYLE”

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am grateful to solicitor Aaron Pearson for giving me permission to post some comments he put on LinkedIn earlier today. It is  small issue, but is an example of the administrative errors that occur daily within the court system,…

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan allowed an appeal as to costs in a issue relating to Part 36. She held that the trial judge had erred in making no…

THE EXPERT AS ADVOCATE AND PROVIDING "CRITICAL COMMENTARY": IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TO TAKE AWAY

THE EXPERT AS ADVOCATE AND PROVIDING “CRITICAL COMMENTARY”: IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS TO TAKE AWAY

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are some interesting comments on experts in the judgment of Matthew Gullick (sitting as a High Court Judge) in  Pepe’s Piri Piri Ltd & Anor v Junaid & Ors [2019] EWHC 2097. “It is not part of the duty…

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.