One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.1K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- COST BITES 254: DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE CAPACITY? AN IMPORTANT POINT WHEN CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF THE RETAINER: AN ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE SCCO TODAY
- COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS “BROUGHT FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES” DISMISSED: NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS: WHY THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS STRATEGY
- ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIMANT FAILED TO COMPLY PROPERLY WITH AN UNLESS ORDER FOR DETAILS OF FUNDING: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
- GENERAL DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY: THE KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 9th JULY 2025
- COST BITES 253: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOW APPEAL IN HOLCROFT -V- THORNEYCROFT SOLICITORS – BY CONSENT: AN “AGREEMENT” AS TO THE DEDUCTION OF COSTS DOES NOT PREVENT A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT
Top Posts & Pages
- Login
- COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS "BROUGHT FOR COLLATERAL PURPOSES" DISMISSED: NOTICE TO SHOW CAUSE ISSUED AGAINST THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS: WHY THIS IS A VERY DANGEROUS STRATEGY
- ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIMANT FAILED TO COMPLY PROPERLY WITH AN UNLESS ORDER FOR DETAILS OF FUNDING: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL
- COST BITES 253: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOW APPEAL IN HOLCROFT -V- THORNEYCROFT SOLICITORS - BY CONSENT: AN "AGREEMENT" AS TO THE DEDUCTION OF COSTS DOES NOT PREVENT A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT
- COST BITES 254: DOES YOUR CLIENT HAVE CAPACITY? AN IMPORTANT POINT WHEN CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF THE RETAINER: AN ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE SCCO TODAY
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
I was actually quite surprised by the outcome of this appeal. The judge was very robust, but I remember the video films the full and part time judiciary were all shown in 199-2000 showing us how to deal with case management and counsel/solicitors. The “approved” style was not that different from that used by the circuit judge in this case. And some of his questions and observations may have been pointed but were also very pertinent. Not in the same territory, in my view, as the recent case of the DJ in the care case: turning her back, shouting, and so on (although even then the higher court expressed some sympathy). There we are.