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 » Page 11
INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS IN HIGH VALUE CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF CASHFLOW RECOGNISED IN SHEFFIELD

INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS IN HIGH VALUE CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF CASHFLOW RECOGNISED IN SHEFFIELD

March 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Jim Gladman from Switalskis, solicitors for sending me a copy of the approved judgment of HHJ Robinson in I -v- Hull & East Yorkshire NHS Trust (25th February 2019).  A copy of that judgment is available…

PERMISSION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO PLEAD NEW CASE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD REFUSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: STICK TO THE PLEADINGS

PERMISSION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO PLEAD NEW CASE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD REFUSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: STICK TO THE PLEADINGS

March 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

In Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 416 the Court of Appeal overturned an order allowing the claimant permission to amend its case.  In essence the Court of Appeal decided that where a court was considering an…

THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS

THE POST OFFICE CASE (AGAIN): STRIKING OUT PASSAGES IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DEFENDANT WITH SUPERNATURAL POWERS

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

For the third time today I am writing about the case of Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd [2018] EWHC 2698 (QB). However we are now looking at the earlier interlocutory application by the defendant to strike out large parts…

CASE MANAGEMENT, "RELEVANCE" AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT "IN TERROREM": MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Conduct, Members Content

I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual.   This part…

ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHEN POST OFFICE WITNESSES DO NOT DELIVER

ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: WHEN POST OFFICE WITNESSES DO NOT DELIVER

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) is 1122 paragraphs long, following a two week long trial.  There are aspects of this case I will look at again. However, it is interesting…

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME: ADVICE FROM M' LEARNED FRIEND: "DON'T PANIC" AND BE TOTALLY CLEAR IN WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME: ADVICE FROM M’ LEARNED FRIEND: “DON’T PANIC” AND BE TOTALLY CLEAR IN WHAT YOU ARE AGREEING

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Limitation, Members Content

In his post yesterday Agreeing An Extension to the Limitation Period Nigel Poole QC dealt with some of the issues arising from the judgment in  Cowan v Foreman and ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) where Mostyn J suggested it was not possible for the…

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT'S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT'S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

GIVING NOTICE THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ATTACK AN EXPERT’S CREDIBILITY: ISSUES THAT ARISE WHEN EXPERT’S HAVE PRIOR DEALINGS WITH THE PARTIES

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Hamad M. Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 574 (TCC)  Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart expressed concern about an attack on the credibility of an expert witness.  In that case there was no evidence to support an assertion that…

WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: A "CUT OUT AND KEEP" GUIDE: A JUDGMENT ON INTEREST OF INTEREST

WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: A “CUT OUT AND KEEP” GUIDE: A JUDGMENT ON INTEREST OF INTEREST

March 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

The judgment of Mr Justice Bryan in Assetco Plc v Grant Thornton UK LLP [2019] EWHC 592 (Comm) provides a helpful review of the principles and authorities relating to the approach to be adopted when a claimant beats their own Part…

"THE CLAIMANTS MUST RUE THE DAY THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT'S OFFER": CLAIMANT TO PAY STANDARD COSTS AFTER REJECTING VERY EARLY PART 36 OFFER

“THE CLAIMANTS MUST RUE THE DAY THEY REJECTED THE DEFENDANT’S OFFER”: CLAIMANT TO PAY STANDARD COSTS AFTER REJECTING VERY EARLY PART 36 OFFER

March 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The costs judgment in  Burgess & Anor v Lejonvarn [2019] EWHC 369 (TCC) is probably a judgment that should be shown to all litigants.  The claimant rejected an offer of £25,000 and failed to beat that offer at trial.   The defendant’s…

WHEN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS GO WRONG: IF YOU CAN'T OPERATE BY THE RULES THEY MAY TAKE YOUR LICENCE AWAY...

WHEN ENFORCEMENT PROCEEDINGS GO WRONG: IF YOU CAN’T OPERATE BY THE RULES THEY MAY TAKE YOUR LICENCE AWAY…

March 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Enforcement, Members Content, Witness statements

The enforcement of judgments is an aspect of civil procedure that rarely makes the law reports.  In Rooftops South West Ltd & Ors v Ash Interiors (UK) Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2799 (QB) Master Davison was highly critical of the…

EXPERTS WHO CAN'T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN'T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL...

EXPERTS WHO CAN’T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN’T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL…

March 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In X and Y (Delay : Professional Conduct of Expert) [2019] EWFC B9 HH Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) made some observations in relation to the role of the expert, particularly when that expert cannot report timeously.  The…

BANKRUPTCY PETITION NOT SERVED PROPERLY: BANKRUPTCY NOT ANNULLED

BANKRUPTCY PETITION NOT SERVED PROPERLY: BANKRUPTCY NOT ANNULLED

March 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Serving documents, Setting aside judgment

There may well be a disturbance in the Force if there is not a service of the claim form case every few weeks.  In Ardawa v Uppal & Anor [2019] EWHC 456 (Ch) Mr Justice Roth held that a judge could…

TIMING OF APPLICATIONS FOR ANONYMITY: CLAIMANTS SHOULD ACT WELL BEFORE TRIAL

TIMING OF APPLICATIONS FOR ANONYMITY: CLAIMANTS SHOULD ACT WELL BEFORE TRIAL

March 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Zeromska-Smith v United Lincolnshire Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 552 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer refused the claimant’s application for anonymity.  He made important observations about when such an application should normally be made. THE TIMING OF APPLICATIONS After refusing…

POSTS ON STRESS AND LITIGATION: A RECAP: LITIGATION AND LITIGATORS IN A TOUGH WORLD

POSTS ON STRESS AND LITIGATION: A RECAP: LITIGATION AND LITIGATORS IN A TOUGH WORLD

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Members Content, Well being

Comments on the post earlier this evening on dealing with stress have been supportive.  This may be a good time to provide a recap of the posts and links already on this blog in relation to lawyers, litigation and stress….

HOW DO LAWYERS RELAX? GUIDANCE AND LINKS: FIND MUGGLES,  START SEWING AND DISCONNECT FROM YOUR WORK

HOW DO LAWYERS RELAX? GUIDANCE AND LINKS: FIND MUGGLES, START SEWING AND DISCONNECT FROM YOUR WORK

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Members Content, Useful links, Well being

This post follows a tweet I received earlier this evening, from “Bunglingbarrister” Bunglingbarrister‏    “Even when I’m not doing work I still think about it often. I don’t think it is healthy to never allow your brain to switch off….

ALLEGED "MISCONDUCT" DURING ASSESSMENT PROCESS DID NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED OR REDUCED: ATE PREMIUM WAS REASONABLE

ALLEGED “MISCONDUCT” DURING ASSESSMENT PROCESS DID NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED OR REDUCED: ATE PREMIUM WAS REASONABLE

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 539 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart rejected an argument that mistakes made by a claimant during the assessment of costs process should have led to costs being disallowed or reduced. The…

PROVING THINGS 145: WHEN EXPERTS ARE OF NO HELP AT ALL: IT IS THE FACTS THAT WON IT

PROVING THINGS 145: WHEN EXPERTS ARE OF NO HELP AT ALL: IT IS THE FACTS THAT WON IT

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I am giving a seminar on “Expert Witnesses and Liability” at the APIL Annual Conference in May.  The judgment of HHJ McKenna (sitting as a High Court judge) in  Al-Iqra & Ors v DSG Retail Ltd [2019] EWHC 429 (QB) gives…

PROVING THINGS 144: THAT TEMPTATION TO PUT MATTERS IN THE SKELETON THAT AREN'T ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE: ALSO - THE POWER OF LISTS

PROVING THINGS 144: THAT TEMPTATION TO PUT MATTERS IN THE SKELETON THAT AREN’T ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE: ALSO – THE POWER OF LISTS

March 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Written advocacy

We have looked before at attempts to use a skeleton argument to introduce evidence (often made in desperation to be fair). An example of this can be seen in a short passage in the judgment in Schettini v Silvestri & Ors…

TERMINATING A CFA WITH GOOD REASON: NO NEED FOR SOLICITORS TO WAIT FOR GODOT: ADVICE ABOUT "SETTLEMENT" COVERS THE MAKING OF AN OFFER

TERMINATING A CFA WITH GOOD REASON: NO NEED FOR SOLICITORS TO WAIT FOR GODOT: ADVICE ABOUT “SETTLEMENT” COVERS THE MAKING OF AN OFFER

March 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Butler v Bankside Commercial Ltd [2019] EWHC 510 (QB) Mr Justice Turner upheld a decision of Master Yoxall holding that a client was liable to pay their solicitor’s costs after a conditional fee agreement came to an end when the…

"THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT TAKE THE DIRECTIONS SERIOUSLY ENOUGH": ANOTHER RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CASE

“THE DEFENDANTS DID NOT TAKE THE DIRECTIONS SERIOUSLY ENOUGH”: ANOTHER RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CASE

March 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 1) [2019] EWHC 341 (QB) Mr Justice Warby granted the defendant relief from sanctions. However the observations made in relation to the conduct of litigation are…

"OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF FICTION", NOT NECESSARILY A PRUDENT WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION: WITNESS STATEMENTS, WITNESS SUMMARIES AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS:

“OUTSIDE THE REALMS OF FICTION”, NOT NECESSARILY A PRUDENT WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION: WITNESS STATEMENTS, WITNESS SUMMARIES AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS:

March 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In  Otuo v The Watch Tower Bible And Tract Society of Britain (Relief from Sanctions 2) [2019] EWHC 346 (QB) Mr Justice Warby granted limited relief from sanctions to a litigant in person who had served “witness summaries” rather than witness…

WHAT'S IN A NAME? "PAYOUTS", "WINS" AND THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CLAIMANT

WHAT’S IN A NAME? “PAYOUTS”, “WINS” AND THE SERIOUSLY INJURED CLAIMANT

March 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Damages, Members Content

As lawyers we know, or should know, the dangers of putting pejorative labels on things.  In litigation we are fortunate in that an attempt to label parties, or issues, pejoratively, often backfires. However we often see the pejorative labelling of…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 33: INVALUABLE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM THE ICCA

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 33: INVALUABLE GUIDANCE ON EXPERT EVIDENCE FROM THE ICCA

March 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Useful links

The Inns of Court College of Advocacy has prepared a very useful guide called “Guidance on the preparation, admission and examination of expert evidence”.  It is free of charge and can be downloaded .   This post is just a summary…

PROVING THINGS 143: THE COURTS DON'T REALLY APPRECIATE  EVIDENCE COMING FROM THE NEWS RATHER THAN THE PARTIES: (SHIPS, I SEE NO SHIPS)

PROVING THINGS 143: THE COURTS DON’T REALLY APPRECIATE EVIDENCE COMING FROM THE NEWS RATHER THAN THE PARTIES: (SHIPS, I SEE NO SHIPS)

March 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In The Channel Tunnel Group Ltd & Anor (t/a “Eurotunnel”) v Secretary of State for Transport [2019] EWHC 419 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser expressed concern that witness statements served by the Secretary of State in a civil action were almost immediately…

PROVING THINGS 142: CLAIMANT HAS TO PROVE SIZE OF HIGHWAY DEFECT: PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE "ALMOST COMPLETELY USELESS"

PROVING THINGS 142: CLAIMANT HAS TO PROVE SIZE OF HIGHWAY DEFECT: PHOTOGRAPHS THAT WERE “ALMOST COMPLETELY USELESS”

March 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

The judgment today in  Walsh v The Council of the Borough of Kirklees [2019] EWHC 492 (QB) contains an important message for anyone involved in highway or “tripper” litigation: the claimant has to have evidence to prove the size of the…

AGENCY FEES ALLOWED ON APPEAL:  FULL COPY OF JUDGMENT AVAILABLE

AGENCY FEES ALLOWED ON APPEAL: FULL COPY OF JUDGMENT AVAILABLE

March 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Paul Hughes for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Graham Wood QC in Beardmore -v- Lancashire County Council.  The case considers the paying, and cost, of medical agency fees. A copy of…

DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: ACTION THEN STRUCK OUT: REMEMBERING THE BASIC OBLIGATION TO FILE A DEFENCE - ON TIME

DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: ACTION THEN STRUCK OUT: REMEMBERING THE BASIC OBLIGATION TO FILE A DEFENCE – ON TIME

March 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment

In Workman v Deansgate 123 LLP [2019] EWHC 360 (QB) Mr Justice William Davis allowed an application to set aside a default judgment and relief from sanctions.  The most surprising procedural aspect of this case is the defendant’s failure to file…

LIMITATION AND INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS: SOMETHING TO WATCH CAREFULLY: AGREEING "LIMITATION AMNESTY" MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE

LIMITATION AND INHERITANCE ACT CLAIMS: SOMETHING TO WATCH CAREFULLY: AGREEING “LIMITATION AMNESTY” MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE

March 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Limitation, Members Content

NB – THESE COMMENTS ON THE POWER TO AGREE AN AMNESTY WERE DOUBTED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL SEE THE POST HERE   In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWHC 349 (Fam) Mr Justice Mostyn set out some importance principles in…

THE DANGERS OF TAKING A ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENT - A RECAP

THE DANGERS OF TAKING A ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENT – A RECAP

February 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

A number of recent posts have looked at difficulties caused the the way in which evidence was collected and witness statements drafted.  The taking of one-sided witness statements led to major difficulties for the party who were attempting to rely…

IF YOU ARE AT TRIAL AND HAVEN'T PAID THE TRIAL FEE: STRIKE OUT IS AUTOMATIC: A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NEEDS TO BE MADE

IF YOU ARE AT TRIAL AND HAVEN’T PAID THE TRIAL FEE: STRIKE OUT IS AUTOMATIC: A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NEEDS TO BE MADE

February 22, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Hyslop -v- 38/41 CHG Residents Company Limited [2018] EWHC 3893 (QB)    Mr Justice Freedman considered a case in which the fact that a claimant had not paid the trial fee only came to light at the trial itself. …

STRIKING OUT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT: ANOTHER  CASE TO "CUT OUT AND KEEP": ALS0 - THE EVIDENCE STOPS ONCE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN HEARD

STRIKING OUT AND SUMMARY JUDGMENT: ANOTHER CASE TO “CUT OUT AND KEEP”: ALS0 – THE EVIDENCE STOPS ONCE THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN HEARD

February 22, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment

Some judgments extrapolate and summarise legal principles so succinctly that they can be regarded as “cut out and keep” guides to an area of law or practice.   The judgment of Master Shuman in  Capita Pension Trustees Ltd & Anor v Sedgwick…

PERMISSION TO AMEND GIVEN TO PLEAD COSTS PAID IN PREVIOUS ACTION AS DAMAGES: GAMBLING ON GETTING A SECOND CHANCE

PERMISSION TO AMEND GIVEN TO PLEAD COSTS PAID IN PREVIOUS ACTION AS DAMAGES: GAMBLING ON GETTING A SECOND CHANCE

February 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Damages, Members Content

In Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavora SPA [2019] EWHC 303 (Comm) the High Court granted the claimant permission to amend to include, as a claim for damages, the costs of a previous action. “I have come to…

THE SIGNED SECRET BARRISTER T-SHIRT: NOW SILKY SMOOTH:   NOW ARRIVED AT THE LAST STAGE OF ITS JOURNEY

THE SIGNED SECRET BARRISTER T-SHIRT: NOW SILKY SMOOTH: NOW ARRIVED AT THE LAST STAGE OF ITS JOURNEY

February 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Charity, Members Content

The signed Secret Barrister T-shirt is on the last stage of its journey to the successful bidder. We now have evidence that it has been ironed and, in its perfect state, is on its way to the winning bidder. A…

AN ANONYMOUS DRIVER CANNOT BE SUED: YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO SERVE...

AN ANONYMOUS DRIVER CANNOT BE SUED: YOU’VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO SERVE…

February 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Insurance, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In the judgment today  Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal decision in relation to service when there is an unknown driver.  The court cannot make an order that service…

WITNESS EVIDENCE: GRAPPLE WITH THOSE DIFFICULTIES: KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CASE: OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO COST YOU (ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF AN OFFER)

WITNESS EVIDENCE: GRAPPLE WITH THOSE DIFFICULTIES: KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CASE: OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO COST YOU (ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF AN OFFER)

February 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

The previous post looked at the witness evidence of some of the claimants against one of the defendants in the case of Zagora Management Ltd & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC).  Here we look at the…

WHEN WITNESSES GO "UP HILL AND DOWN DALE" IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE: TIME TO LOOK AT THE WAY STATEMENTS ARE PREPARED

WHEN WITNESSES GO “UP HILL AND DOWN DALE” IN AN ATTEMPT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE: TIME TO LOOK AT THE WAY STATEMENTS ARE PREPARED

February 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a judge of the High Court) in  Zagora Management Ltd & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC) shows why witness statements should be considered carefully prior to…

WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

WHEN EXPERTS REPORT THINGS THAT HAVE NEVER BEEN SAID: IT NEVER GOES WELL (WHEN THEY ARE FOUND OUT AT LEAST)

February 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There was report in the Scottish newspaper The Herald earlier this week about disciplinary proceedings being brought against a doctor who had prepared a “misleading and inaccurate” medical report. In essence the expert reported, as facts, matters that the interviewee…

KEEP YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS SHORT AND TO THE POINT: A SHOT ACROSS THE LITIGANTS' BOWS

KEEP YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS SHORT AND TO THE POINT: A SHOT ACROSS THE LITIGANTS’ BOWS

February 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Avonwick Holdings Ltd v Azitio Holdings & Ors [2019] EWHC 305 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker refused the defendants’ application for an adjournment of a trial date. When doing so he sent a clear message as to the way in…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK - WITH VENGEANCE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 32: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE THE HUMBLE WITNESS SUMMARY: IT COULD BITE BACK – WITH VENGEANCE

February 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Witness statements

The earlier post on the judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited(Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) highlighted how dangerous it is for a party to serve a witness summary.   Here we look at the rules relating to witness summaries, the…

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

COURT REFUSED TO ORDER THAT CONTESTED EVIDENCE BE REMOVED FROM EXPERT REPORTS

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In A v B [2019] EWHC 275 (Comm) Mrs Justice Moulder refused the defendant’s application to declare inadmissible part of an expert report and a joint expert report.  It was held that the principles in Rogers -v- Hoyle are of general…

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

EXAGGERATION IS NOT NECESSARILY FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WHEN THE DEFENDANT DIGS A BIG EVIDENTIAL HOLE FOR ITSELF

February 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Hampton in Smith -v- Ashwell Maintenance Limited (Leicester County Court 21/01/2019) is available through a Linked In post provided by barrister Andrew Mckie. It provides a number of lessons for those collecting evidence. In a case where…

DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE

DEFENDANTS REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: INADEQUATE EXPLANATIONS WILL NOT SUFFICE

February 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Consult II SRO & Ors v Shire Warwick Lewis Capital Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 286 (Comm) Andrew Henshaw QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the defendants’ application for relief from sanctions. The lack of a candid explanation…

"IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE,  THIS IS IT"

“IF EVER THERE WERE A CASE IN WHICH THE COURT SHOULD REFUSE TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN FAVOUR OF GIVING THE CLAIMANTS ANY FURTHER INDULGENCE, THIS IS IT”

February 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The judgment in  Jetly & Anor v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWHC 204 (Admin) sets out a series of surprising events.  Mrs Justice Andrews came down very firmly against granting relief from sanctions. Many of the…

WHEN LITIGATION BECOMES A "VERBAL BRAWL": DISCLOSURE MUST BE PROPORTIONATE

WHEN LITIGATION BECOMES A “VERBAL BRAWL”: DISCLOSURE MUST BE PROPORTIONATE

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content

In Canary Riverside Estate Management Ltd v Circus Apartments Ltd [2019] EWHC 154 (Ch) Master Shuman observed how disclosure applications could quickly become disproportional. The litigation had become a “verbal brawl”. It is an example of the dangers of losing sight…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 31: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AT THE "LAST KNOWN ADDRESS": FIVE KEY POINTS

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 31: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AT THE “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS”: FIVE KEY POINTS

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Service at a defendant’s  “last known address” is something that can be highly problematic.  There are dangers in serving at an address unless you are wholly certain that the defendant still resides there. Here we look at the rules and…

STRIKING OUT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE PART 8 PROCEDURE: YOU CAN'T RELY ON MATTERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PLEADED: CLAIMANT'S CASE STRUCK OUT

STRIKING OUT, SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND THE PART 8 PROCEDURE: YOU CAN’T RELY ON MATTERS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PLEADED: CLAIMANT’S CASE STRUCK OUT

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

I am grateful to barrister Toby Bishop   for sending me a copy of the judgment of Master Marsh in Bhusate -v- Patel [2018] EWHC 2362 (Ch). Re Bhusate JUDGMENT copy  Toby’s discussion of the substantive issues that arose in the claim can…

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

PROVING THINGS 141: CREDIBILITY WAS IMPORTANT IN CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AGAINST SOLICITORS: SUPREME COURT RESTORES DECISION OF TRIAL JUDGE

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Witness statements

In Perry v Raleys Solicitors [2019] UKSC 5 the Supreme Court restored the decision of the trial judge in relation to damages. One of the key issues was whether the Court of Appeal was correct to overturn the trial judge’s factual…

SHOULD A "RECKLESS" MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SHOULD A “RECKLESS” MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Last year I wrote about the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB). Among other things in that judgment it was found that a medical expert’s recklessness amounted to contempt of court.  The expert…

VIEWING THE WOOD FROM THE TREES: ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A "CUT OUT AND KEEP" GUIDE

VIEWING THE WOOD FROM THE TREES: ASSESSING WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A “CUT OUT AND KEEP” GUIDE

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

 The judgment of Teare J in Deripaska and Danilina v Chernukhin case [2019] EWHC 173 (Comm), is (at present) only available via a link on the Serle Court website.  It is useful in that a few paragraphs encapsulate the judicial approach to…

CLAIMANTS IN A FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM HAVE NOT "WON" ANYTHING: SETTLEMENT OF ACTION APPROVED: DETAILS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

CLAIMANTS IN A FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM HAVE NOT “WON” ANYTHING: SETTLEMENT OF ACTION APPROVED: DETAILS KEPT CONFIDENTIAL

February 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Damages, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

In Correa & Ors v BP Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 232 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip approved damages in a fatal accident case.  The judgment provides a great deal of anonymity but gives a real indication of the difficulties involved. “The…

← Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next →

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

  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: “NEARLY LEGAL” – AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE LAW AND PRACTICE: WEBINAR 24th APRIL 2026
  • EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
  • COSTS BITES 377: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO MEDIATE LEAD TO IT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS?

Top Posts

  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: "NEARLY LEGAL" - AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
  • THERE MAY BE A LOT OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING A PARTY: HOWEVER THE CLAIM WAS STILL PRESENTED IN AN "UNFOCUSED" MANNER: A "MOVEABLE FEAST" IS NOT A WISE WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?
  • COSTS BITES 377: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO MEDIATE LEAD TO IT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS?

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.