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 » July » 02
NO ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER AND PART 36 BENEFITS APPLIED WHEN CLAIMANT BEAT HIS OWN PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

NO ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER AND PART 36 BENEFITS APPLIED WHEN CLAIMANT BEAT HIS OWN PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Scales v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2020] EWHC 1749 (QB) Mr Justice Cavangh rejected the defendant’s submission that there should be an issue based costs order and awarded a claimant the usual Part 36 benefits when he beat his own…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURES ON DISCLOSURE: THE  DEPP TRIAL IS BACK AFLOAT

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURES ON DISCLOSURE: THE DEPP TRIAL IS BACK AFLOAT

July 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

Last week I wrote on the latest episode of the Depp case.  Mr Justice Nicol held that there had been a failure to comply with a peremptory order on disclosure and the Mr Depp’s case stood struck out.  Today it…

WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT? ANOTHER CASE WHEN CLAIM FORM WRONGLY SERVED : CLAIMANT "SERVED" ON SOLICITORS WHO DID NOT HAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCEPT SERVICE

WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT? ANOTHER CASE WHEN CLAIM FORM WRONGLY SERVED : CLAIMANT “SERVED” ON SOLICITORS WHO DID NOT HAVE INSTRUCTIONS TO ACCEPT SERVICE

July 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In the judgment  in Gallagher v Hallows Associates [2020] EW Misc 7 (CC) HHJ Jarman QC found that a defendant had been wrongly served when it was sent to solicitors who did not state they had instructions to accept service.  This…

WHEN YOU MUST AND WHEN YOU CAN'T SERVE PROCEEDINGS ON THE CLIENT'S SOLICITOR (ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE)

WHEN YOU MUST AND WHEN YOU CAN’T SERVE PROCEEDINGS ON THE CLIENT’S SOLICITOR (ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE)

July 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The judgment yesterday in Piepenbrock v Associated Newspapers Ltd & Ors  [2020] EWHC 1708 gives rise to that familiar issue of when a party can, and cannot, serve on the defendant’s solicitor.  No apologies are made for repeating the rules here. …

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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS : THE COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT ON A POINT NOT PLEADED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AGREED ISSUES FOR TRIAL
  • COST BITES 450: IF THE CLAIMANT SUCCEEDED ON A CASE THAT WAS NOT PLEADED SHOULD IT THEN PAY THE DEFENDANTS’ COSTS?
  • LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (5): “THE HEARING WAS A SALUTARY LESSON IN HOW AI MAY PROMPT LAY PERSONS TO SAY THE RIGHT THINGS IN PLEADINGS, BUT CANNOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THOSE STATEMENTS”
  • THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: USEFUL GUIDANCE AND AN ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST WHEN MAKING AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT…
  • A COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE: ANOTHER CASE THAT EMPHASISES THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT THESE APPLICATIONS: A LAWYER CANNOT SIMPLY PROMOTE A “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BUT MOST ACT OBJECTIVELY AND CAREFULLY

Top Posts

THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS...)
EXPERT WATCH 71: "I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE": THE EXPERT WAS "ADVOCATING" AND "HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL"
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE: THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER DENTON PRINCIPLES EVEN IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET THEIR OWN PROPOSED TIMETABLE
CLAIM AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS STRUCK OUT: THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN...

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.