Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2020 » September » 07
PROVING DAMAGES IN A FATAL CASE: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE "PRACTICAL REALITY": WIDOW DID HAVE A FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY WHERE HUSBAND HAD RUN A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS

PROVING DAMAGES IN A FATAL CASE: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE “PRACTICAL REALITY”: WIDOW DID HAVE A FINANCIAL DEPENDENCY WHERE HUSBAND HAD RUN A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS

September 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Damages, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

In Rix v Paramount Shopfitting Company Ltd [2020] EWHC 2398 (QB) Mr Justice Cavangh considered and applied an important principle in fatal accident damages.  The fact that the deceased person was running a successful business, and it went on trading …

JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN AND NOT TO ALLOW SINGLE WITNESS IN PLACE OF JOINT WITNESS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO REFUSE CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ADJOURN AND NOT TO ALLOW SINGLE WITNESS IN PLACE OF JOINT WITNESS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

September 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Hinson v Hare Realizations Ltd (2) [2020] EWHC 2386 (QB)  Mr Justice Martin Spencer refused a claimant’s appeal where it was argued that a trial judge should have adjourned a trial and given the claimant permission to rely on…

PROTOCOL FOR INSOLVENCY AND COMPANY WORK AT CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT: APPLICABLE FROM TODAY

PROTOCOL FOR INSOLVENCY AND COMPANY WORK AT CENTRAL LONDON COUNTY COURT: APPLICABLE FROM TODAY

September 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content, Remote hearings

A Protocol for insolvency and company work at Central London applies from today. It is set out in full below. It sets out details for remote hearings of bulk and other work made necessary by the pandemic. “PROTOCOL FOR INSOLVENCY…

"LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING": A REMINDER OF ITS IMPORTANCE

“LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”: A REMINDER OF ITS IMPORTANCE

September 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has looked many times at those cases where a case is determined by the judge’s assessment of the credibility of the witnesses.  This does not always (or event often) mean that the losing side are not telling 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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE UNDER SCRUTINY, ADMISSIBILITY AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED: “THE PROVIDING OF PATENTLY UNTRUE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE COURT, ENDORSED WITH STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, IS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO THE COURT”
  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.