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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS’ BILLS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

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.