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 » 31
PROVING THINGS 173: FAILING TO PROVE ANY KIND OF PAST OR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS: A BLAMIRE AWARD IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE

PROVING THINGS 173: FAILING TO PROVE ANY KIND OF PAST OR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS: A BLAMIRE AWARD IS NOT A SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE

January 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

There is another aspect of the judgment of Mr Justice Chamberlain in  BXB v Watch Tower And Bible Tract Society of Pennsylvannia & Anor [2020] EWHC 156 (QB) that merits attention. Th claimant sought damage for loss of earnings  but these…

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

  • FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: HOW SHOULD CARE DEPENDENCY BE ASSESSED? DOES IT END IF A WIDOW GOES INTO A NURSING HOME
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDENSDAY (2): WHEN A WITNESS GETS COACHING FROM ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE – WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?
  • PROVING THINGS 294: THE CLAIMANT ESTABLISHES EVERY ELEMENT OF LIABILITY IN ITS CLAIM FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT: DAMAGES WERE ONE POUND…
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A JUDGE IS NOT BOUND TO ACCEPT ALL DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE: THE CLAIMANT “HONESTLY BELIEVED” THE CASE BUT THIS DID NOT PROVE IT…
  • “STING OPERATIONS”, SECRET AGENTS, NAIVE SOLICITORS DISCLOSING THEIR CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, STRIKING OUT AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION HIGHLIGHTS THE MAJOR RISKS OF “PRIVILEGE HUNTING”

Top 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,
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
WHAT SHOULD A SOLICITOR DO IF A CLIENT IS PUTTING FORWARD AN ACCOUNT THAT MAY BE UNTRUE AND THEN THERE ARE "RED FLAGS"? WHEN IS THE LINE CROSSED: THE DUTIES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
"STING OPERATIONS", SECRET AGENTS, NAIVE SOLICITORS DISCLOSING THEIR CLIENT'S PRIVILEGED INFORMATION, STRIKING OUT AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION HIGHLIGHTS THE MAJOR RISKS OF "PRIVILEGE HUNTING"
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

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.