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 » 10
TRANSPARENCY PROJECT: REMOTE COURT HEARINGS GUIDANCE NOTE

TRANSPARENCY PROJECT: REMOTE COURT HEARINGS GUIDANCE NOTE

June 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content, Remote hearings

The Transparency Project have produced a Remote Court Hearings Guidance Note.  This is aimed at litigants themselves. Although it is quite specifically aimed at the Family Courts many litigants (and some lawyers) may find this of some assistance.   THE…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 78: NO DUTY ON AN INJURED CLAIMANT TO USE THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 78: NO DUTY ON AN INJURED CLAIMANT TO USE THE NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE

June 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

This post is due to a tweet someone copied me in on this morning.  The issue was, ostensibly, one of general damages in a personal injury case.  An insurer was refusing to pay the costs of private treatment  – stating…

CORONAVIRUS LAW IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: A HYBRID HEARING WILL NOT BE UNFAIR IF LEADING COUNSEL CANNOT ATTEND IN PERSON

CORONAVIRUS LAW IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: A HYBRID HEARING WILL NOT BE UNFAIR IF LEADING COUNSEL CANNOT ATTEND IN PERSON

June 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Coronavirus, Members Content

In the judgment today in C (Children : Covid-19: Representation) [2020] EWCA Civ 734 the Court of Appeal dismissed an argument that a “hybrid” hearing, to be heard with one side’s leading counsel attending remotely, was unfair.   THE CASE…

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE QUEEN'S BENCH MASTERS FROM 15th JUNE 2020: (EVEN THOUGH YOU'RE NOT GOING TO EQUITY YOU WILL HAVE CLEAN HANDS...)

PROCEEDINGS BEFORE QUEEN’S BENCH MASTERS FROM 15th JUNE 2020: (EVEN THOUGH YOU’RE NOT GOING TO EQUITY YOU WILL HAVE CLEAN HANDS…)

June 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content

A further bulletin has been issued which sets out the procedure for hearings before Queen’s Bench Masters from the 15th June.  The default position is that hearings will be heard remotely. If an “in person” hearing is needed then it…

COVID REPEATS 48: REPLIES AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: A PRIMER

COVID REPEATS 48: REPLIES AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: A PRIMER

June 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Members Content, Statements of Case

Today we are taking a look back at what turned out to be the second most read post on this blog in 2016. The basic rules about when to file a Reply and, more importantly, a defence to counterclaim. 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.