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 » 08
PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLY (IN PART) WHEN CLAIMANT MAKES AN OFFER OF A 0.3% DISCOUNT

PART 36 CONSEQUENCES APPLY (IN PART) WHEN CLAIMANT MAKES AN OFFER OF A 0.3% DISCOUNT

July 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Part 36

In Rawbank SA v Travelex Banknotes Ltd [2020] EWHC 1619 (Ch) Mr Justice Zacaroli ordered that some of the consequences of Part 36 should apply when a claimant made an offer to settle a debt for a slightly reduced figure. …

APPLYING TO SUBSTITUTE A PARTY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE STATUTE AND THE RULES CONSIDERED

APPLYING TO SUBSTITUTE A PARTY AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE STATUTE AND THE RULES CONSIDERED

July 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

The rules relating to substituting a defendant after expiry of the limitation period are always a little intimidating. Particularly  when trying to persuade a court to apply them. They were considered in detail in the judgment of Master Shuman in…

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

  • CIVIL EVIDENCE: “BARE ASSERTIONS” ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED DEBT NOR WILL “VAGUE AND UNPARTICULARISED” EVIDENCE
  • A REMINDER – DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
  • MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
  • AN “EXTERNAL” REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
  • THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 60: THE REVISED LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE NOTE: SOME KEY POINTS: THIS WILL REQUIRE CLOSER OVERSIGHT OF THE WORK BEING DONE
  • A REMINDER - DOCUMENTS IN AN AGREED BUNDLE ARE ADMISSIBLE AT THE HEARING AS EVIDENCE OF THEIR CONTENTS.
  • AN "EXTERNAL" REPORT IS RELEVANT TO THE ISSUES IN THE CASE BUT THE JUDGE WILL DETERMINE ALL KEY MATTERS THEMSELVES..
  • CIVIL EVIDENCE: "BARE ASSERTIONS" ARE INSUFFICIENT TO ESTABLISH A DISPUTED DEBT NOR WILL "VAGUE AND UNPARTICULARISED" EVIDENCE
  • THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE

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.