33 Responses
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
- PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
- “OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS
Top Posts
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP - BUT HINDER: "I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT'S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME"
- MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE "OPINION" EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
- THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: SEE THEM HERE: UPDATED FOR 2026 RATES
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
Completely agree, especially true for those of us acting for clients on the prison estate and other custodial settings, where the relationship between access to justice and reducing the spread of the virus cannot be overstated. Thank you as always Gordon for leading on these issues.
I wholeheartedly agree with this, Gordon.
May I also suggest that the period for commencing detailed assessment proceedings under CPR 47.7 be extended significantly, relaxed, or the sanctions under CPR 47.8 be temporarily postponed.
Currently, where the substantive claim settled in December 2019 or January 2020, before the full impact or the extent of COVID-19 was known, a receiving party still has to commence assessment proceedings within 3 months or be subject to sanctions.
With many solicitors and their costs draftsmen now working from home, with significantly reduced workforces, it is becoming glaringly obvious that such time restrictions cannot realistically be complied with.
Perhaps initially we just need some kind of ‘cover all’ rule which makes allowances for all time restrictions within the CPR to be suspended in times of unforeseen global emergencies, such as pandemics etc? This could then be fine-tuned for specific parts a little later down the line.
I also think any requirements to file or serve hard copies of documents should be lifted for the time being. It is impossible for home workers to prepare and produce lengthy documents, such as a Bill of Costs, which could run into hundreds of pages and contain copied Court Orders and disbursement vouchers.
As many of us are turning to IT to alleviate some of the problems inherent with working from home, and to ensure continued compliance with government-ordered social distancing measures, surely there needs to be some kind of consensus and agreement to accept service of documents electronically and solely by email?
I wholeheartedly agree. I have a case now in the disclosure phase against two co-defendants, husband and wife, both LIPs, both in self isolation. We’ve already agreed up 14 days extension before quarantine, and now, technically, we can only agree to allow them a further 14 days to complete their lists and statements, which we’re happy to receive via email, otherwise they will have to make an application themselves – its absurd!
Well said. Please add my name to the letter.
I definitely concur.
It’s particularly important that there be a relaxation since the County Courts were having administrative difficulties even before the Covid-19 problems swamped us. If they have anyone infected or self-isolating it’s going to be even more problematic.
I support this proposal.
We need to go back to pre Jackson, pre Woolf times and allow parties to manage litigation by collaboration for a while. We do what we can to progress cases within the limits of the current situation.
Tim Beasley, Head of Catastrophic Injury, Levenes
The letter has my full support.
Howard Elgot Parklane Plowden Chambers.
All cases should be stayed where possible for, say, 4 months with parties to file revised agreed directions within 21 days.
Dear Gordon,
I agree and support your letter to the CPR committee in this difficult times.
Best wishes
Isidoro Bonilla
Levenes Solicitors
Totally support this. its just common sense.
Please add my name to your letter. Rachel Mawhood (a litigant in person)
I support this – logic and common sense should prevail.
I whole heartedly agree and support this Gordon. We are all getting piecemeal updates from various Courts and a sensible (as this is) and universal approach is needed.
Full support
I fully support this initiative. Keep up the good work Gordon.
Fully support this. Common sense must prevail.
I agree with this. It might also be prudent to make the following changes:
– limitation deemed to have ceased to run with effect from (say) 1st March 2020.
– any claim form unserved as of 1st March 2020 to be valid until further order.
– time to acknowledge a claim and serve a defence extended to 28/56 days minimum, with parties permitted to extend as per the main proposal.
Simon Bradshaw
Cornwall Street Barristers
Please add my support. The courts were already struggling to cope and clearly there is unlikely to be any additional funding available once this is over, and the court would not be able to deal with the plethora of applications for extensions/relief from sanctions.
As I said on Twitter, I am in. Please add my name. Mel.
Add me please too Gordon
Firmly agree with this Gordon
This is such commonsense.
The membership of the CPRC is listed here
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/civil-procedure-rules-committee/about#membership
Does anyone have direct contact with them?
Much needed.
Please add my name to the letter.
Mary Shone
Colin Brown & Kidson
I wholeheartedly support this stance. The last thing the Justice System needs is unnecessary delay and these types of procedural applications clogging boxwork, when it could be addressed at a stroke by the Rules Committee.
Chris Lee, County Court Rep
Firmly agree
It is truly ridiculous that whilst we are all working electronically we cannot achieve good service via email. Whilst the mail is being delivered, printing and posting may be possible but many solicitors have IT systems that do not allow printing at home because of GDPR. Further personal service with social distancing is difficult especially as many process servers are now not working / serving. Change needs to happen and now.
Sarah Jackson, IBB
I fully support this. Please add my name to the letter.
Tara Mulcair
Birnberg Peirce
Happy to support this. Well done
Jeinsen Lam
Solicitor
South West London Law Centres
I fully support this please add my name to the letter
I agree with all of the above, thanks Gordon
Totally agree, add my name please.
Totally agree. Please add my name to the letter.
Barry Delaney, Sole Practitioner.
I support this entirely. Thank you.
Alison Johnson
Partner, Clinical Negligence, Penningtons Manches Cooper LLP