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 » April » 08
SKYPE HEARINGS AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL ARE STEPPING ON THE GAS...

SKYPE HEARINGS AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL ARE STEPPING ON THE GAS…

April 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Coronavirus, Members Content, Remote hearings

 Teesside Gas Transportation Ltd v Cats North Sea Ltd & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 503 demonstrated that Court of Appeal hearings can take place remotely.   “I have explained how this hearing was undertaken in an attempt to demonstrate the…

DIVISIONAL COURT FINDS THAT EXPERT IN CONTEMPT OF COURT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ERASED FROM MEDICAL REGISTER: “NEW” EVIDENCE ADMITTED

April 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of the Divisional Court today in  General Medical Council & Ors v Zafar [2020] EWHC 846 (Admin) provides an interesting sequel to the earlier judgments in relation to contempt of court by a doctor who had been seriously…

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AND EARLY RELEASE FROM PRISON: CORONAVIRUS A RELEVANT FACTOR

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AND EARLY RELEASE FROM PRISON: CORONAVIRUS A RELEVANT FACTOR

April 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Coronavirus, Members Content

In Chelsea Football Club Ltd v Nichols & Anor [2020] EWHC 827 (QB) Mr Justice Chamberlain held that the applicant’s health condition, current prison conditions and coronavirus were a relevant factor in the early discharge of someone imprisoned for contempt…

HEARING WHERE PARTIES MADE SUBMISSIONS BY TELEPHONE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE

HEARING WHERE PARTIES MADE SUBMISSIONS BY TELEPHONE IS NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN JUSTICE PRINCIPLE

April 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Coronavirus, Members Content

In  the judgment given today in  Jankowski v Regional Court of Torun, Poland [2020] EWHC 826 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham explained the steps taken by the court meant that a hearing held where the parties attended by telephone complied with…

THE TRIAL WILL GO ON: JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT FIVE WEEK TRIAL HAD TO BE ADJOURNED BECAUSE OF COVID-19

THE TRIAL WILL GO ON: JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT FIVE WEEK TRIAL HAD TO BE ADJOURNED BECAUSE OF COVID-19

April 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content

In Blackfriars Ltd, Re [2020] EWHC 845 (Ch) Mr John Kimbell QC (sitting as a  Deputy High Court judge) refused an application to adjourn a trial made on the basis of the difficulties caused by coronavirus.  The judgment contains a…

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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 89: AN APPELLANT CANNOT PURSUE AN UNPLEADED “NEW, NEW CASE”: APPEAL IN CASE AGAINST SOLICITORS WAS “WASTEFUL OF TIME AND RESOURCES”
  • “ALL DOCUMENTS HAD AT LEAST TWO NUMBERS AND TECHNICALLY 3 IN SOME CASES”: A SMALL POINT ABOUT BUNDLES AND NUMBERING
  • PROVING THINGS 295: HOW MUCH SHOULD A CARER BE PAID? INTERESTING READING FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AMONG OTHERS…)
  • LIMITATION AND SEXUAL ABUSE CLAIMS: THE LAW CHANGED AFTER EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSIONS BUT BEFORE JUDGMENT: THE AMENDED ACT APPLIES
  • THE DANGERS OF SUING A DISSOLVED COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE REGISTER: COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND THE PERIOD OF DISSOLUTION

Top Posts

EXPERT WATCH 68: THE MISUSE OF AI: "CREATE ME AN EXCEPTIONAL EXPERT WITNESS REPORT": SHOW HOW MY CLIENT "IS 0% AT FAULT": THIS WITNESS HAD A FEW PROBLEMS...
COST BITES 441: NO ORDER FOR COSTS - EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT WAS SUCCESSFUL: THERE ARE MANY LESSONS TO LEARN HERE...
THE DANGERS OF SUING A DISSOLVED COMPANY WHICH HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE REGISTER: COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME BEYOND THE PERIOD OF DISSOLUTION
COST BITES 439 : IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COSTS BUDGET A REASON NOT TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS ?
COST BITES 442: AN IMPORTANT POINT TO WATCH WHEN SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS ON A COUNTERCLAIM

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.