Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2020 » January » 23
DISCLOSURE OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE LATE: THE FACT THAT THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IS NOT ENOUGH: AN INTERESTING HIGH COURT DECISION

DISCLOSURE OF SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE LATE: THE FACT THAT THE GENIE IS OUT OF THE BOTTLE IS NOT ENOUGH: AN INTERESTING HIGH COURT DECISION

January 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content

  Angus Fergusson  has kindly sent me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in  Grant -v- Newport City Council [2018] EWHC 3813, it is an interesting case where the judge, on appeal, upheld a decision to refuse…

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

  • “I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS A CASE IN WHICH SO LITTLE RESPECT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE COURT”: INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES; OVER-LENGTHY SKELETONS; ENORMOUS BUNDLES (OH AND AN ATTITUDE OF “WE’LL COME INTO COURT WHEN WE WANT TO”…): I CAN’T RECALL JUDICIAL CRITICISM MUCH STRONGER THAN THIS,
  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
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"
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?

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.