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 » 31
HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT'S COSTS

HIGH COURT JUDGE OVERTURNS FINDING THAT THERE WAS NO FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: CLAIMANT HAS TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

In Pegg v Webb & Anor [2020] EWHC 2095 (QB) tMr Justice Spencer overturned a finding of a trial judge that a claimant had not been fundamentally dishonest.  The claimant had been dishonest in the failures to give full disclosure…

USING RTA PROTOCOL AND PART 8 PROCEDURE INAPPROPRIATELY DID NOT LEAD TO ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

USING RTA PROTOCOL AND PART 8 PROCEDURE INAPPROPRIATELY DID NOT LEAD TO ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Members Content, Striking out

The Court of Appeal today gave judgment in Cable v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2020] EWCA Civ 1015 and overturned the decision to strike out an action because it had been issued inappropriately using the portal and Part 8…

HEARINGS AND DETAILED ASSESSMENTS IN THE SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE PRACTICE NOTE BY THE SENIOR COSTS JUDGE

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Coronavirus, Costs, Members Content

Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker has issued a Practice Note in relation to Practice in the Senior Courts Costs Office.   “Introduction 1. As a result of the hard work and determination of the court staff and the willingness to adapt…

THE NEW PRECEDENT T: SEE IT HERE: A MODEL OF ITS KIND...

THE NEW PRECEDENT T: SEE IT HERE: A MODEL OF ITS KIND…

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

I am grateful to Sean Linley for sending me a copy of the new Precedent T that will apply to amended budgets after the 1st October 2020.   You can see it here.  Precedent T Example   THE NEW RULES…

AMENDING PLEADINGS? HAVE A DRAFT AT COURT: JUDGE CONSIDERS "CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS" AND A "PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE PROCEDURAL LITIGATION HISTORY"

AMENDING PLEADINGS? HAVE A DRAFT AT COURT: JUDGE CONSIDERS “CIRCULAR ARGUMENTS” AND A “PARTICULARLY UNFORTUNATE PROCEDURAL LITIGATION HISTORY”

July 31, 2020 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Members Content

The judgment of HHJ Gore QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in  Sivaji v Ministry of Defence [2020] EWHC 2006 (QB) makes interesting reading. It is an object lesson in the need to have an amended pleading to hand…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A DEFENDANT TENANT SPEAKING AT A POSSESSION HEARING JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT FILED A DEFENCE: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES HAVE PRIMACY OVER A PEREMPTORY ORDER
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.