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 » June » 05
"THERE MAY BE WORSE EXAMPLES OF DISPROPORTIONATE AND ILL-JUDGED LITIGATION, BUT NOT SPRING READILY TO MIND": SPEND £600,000 OF COSTS AND GET £5,000 EACH

“THERE MAY BE WORSE EXAMPLES OF DISPROPORTIONATE AND ILL-JUDGED LITIGATION, BUT NOT SPRING READILY TO MIND”: SPEND £600,000 OF COSTS AND GET £5,000 EACH

June 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

When I trespass into the area of family law it is, almost invariably, about the issue of costs. A prime example of the dangers of litigation and costs, almost literally, wiping all the family assets out, can be seen in…

CORONAVIRUS LAW: DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TRIAL REFUSED: TRIAL CAN GO AHEAD IN PERSON (AND WOULD GO AHEAD EVEN IF HELD REMOTELY)

CORONAVIRUS LAW: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TRIAL REFUSED: TRIAL CAN GO AHEAD IN PERSON (AND WOULD GO AHEAD EVEN IF HELD REMOTELY)

June 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Coronavirus, Members Content

In the judgment in  SC v University Hospital Southampton NHS Foundation Trust (Rev 2) [2020] EWHC 1445 (QB) given yesterday Mr Justice Johnson refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment on the grounds that a trial held remotely would be…

CORONAVIRUS LAW: FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES GIVING EVIDENCE AT COURT IS NOT "WORK"

CORONAVIRUS LAW: FURLOUGHED EMPLOYEES GIVING EVIDENCE AT COURT IS NOT “WORK”

June 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Tom Herbert from bringing my attention to Nottinghamshire Law Society Civil Court User Bulletin No 5. It is a case, Fottles v Bourne Leisure, where HHJ Godsmark QC allowed an application to vacate. However during…

CORONAVIRUS LAW: COVID NOT A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE NORMAL RULE AS TO COSTS FOLLOWING DISCONTINUANCE

CORONAVIRUS LAW: COVID NOT A GOOD REASON TO CHANGE NORMAL RULE AS TO COSTS FOLLOWING DISCONTINUANCE

June 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Costs, Members Content

In Khan v Governor of HMP The Mount & Anor [2020] EWHC 1367  Mr Justice Spencer considered, and rejected, an argument that a different costs order should be made because of the impact of coronavirus.   THE CASE The claimant…

COVID REPEATS 43: FAREPAK: "A DOCUMENT CREATED IN THE LANGUAGE OF LAWYERS BY THE LAWYERS"

COVID REPEATS 43: FAREPAK: “A DOCUMENT CREATED IN THE LANGUAGE OF LAWYERS BY THE LAWYERS”

June 5, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Today we are revisiting the observations of Mr Justice Smith in the Farepak case farepak-judges-statement. It presents an object lesson in the need for careful preparation of witness evidence and identifying precisely what “evidence” a witness can give.   “The…

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • SERVICE POINTS 41: THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION FOLLOWING INVALID SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A POINT FOR PRACTITIONERS TO WATCH…
  • SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS”: THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • THE DEFENDANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON’T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A USEFUL ENCAPSULATION OF THE COURT’S APPROACH TO DISPUTED WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESSES CAN LIE FOR VARIOUS REASONS

Top Posts

  • THE DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • SERVICE POINTS 41: THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION FOLLOWING INVALID SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A POINT FOR PRACTITIONERS TO WATCH...
  • SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE "LAST KNOWN ADDRESS": THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON'T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY

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.