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 » October » 03
WHO SACKED WHO? HIGH COURT DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE CLIENT OR THE SOLICITOR ENDED THE RETAINER

WHO SACKED WHO? HIGH COURT DECISION AS TO WHETHER THE CLIENT OR THE SOLICITOR ENDED THE RETAINER

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Walsh v Greystone Financial Services Ltd [2019] EWHC 2573 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee had to decide whether it was the client or the solicitor who ended the retainer. THE CASE At the end of a trial at which the…

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

 In  Ford & Anor v Bennett & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1604 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs.  The judgment contains a lesson to “additional parties” to litigation. “Parties who…

REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATES: THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS RIGHT

REALISTIC TIME ESTIMATES: THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING THIS RIGHT

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

There is a short passage in  Barrowfen Properties Ltd v Hambros Investments Ltd & Anor [2019] EWHC 2548 (Ch) where Chief Insolvency and Companies Court Judge Briggs makes it clear that an application had been given an inadequate time estimate….

LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 4: SOME COURTS MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A CLIENT'S FAILURE TO GIVE FIRST HAND EVIDENCE

LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 4: SOME COURTS MAY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT A CLIENT’S FAILURE TO GIVE FIRST HAND EVIDENCE

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This series looks at the question of when, if ever, it is appropriate for a solicitor to swear an affidavit or make a statement in place of the client? This issue was considered by Stanley Burnton J in Bracken Partners…

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

  • 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…)
  • THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE: THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER DENTON PRINCIPLES EVEN IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET THEIR OWN PROPOSED TIMETABLE
  • 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”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE (SEPTEMBER 2018)
  • MORE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST A SOLICITOR BEING STRUCK OUT: THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY MEANT THERE WAS NO CASE: A CLAIMANT CANNOT HOPE THAT “SOMETHING WILL TURN UP” ON DISCLOSURE…

Top Posts

TUPE DOES NOT PASS ON LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS' FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT...)
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
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT "FALSE" AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS

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.