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 » 11
CHILDREN AND PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: WEBINAR 5th OCTOBER 2020

CHILDREN AND PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATION: WEBINAR 5th OCTOBER 2020

September 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

This webinar looks at practical issues relating to children and personal injury litigation, including liability, damages and procedure. Details of how to book are available here.    This webinar looks at the practical implications of acting for children injured in…

DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE CASE LED TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING PAID: MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF "NOT ACTING IN GOOD" FAITH: A SPECULATIVE & WEAK CASE: EXPERTS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT OF THE CASE LED TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING PAID: MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF “NOT ACTING IN GOOD” FAITH: A SPECULATIVE & WEAK CASE: EXPERTS WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST

September 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Experts, Members Content

This is the third (but not the last) look at the judgment on costs  in Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387. The judge held that the defendant’s conduct of the case was such that…

DID A CLAIMANT DO BETTER THAN ITS OWN PART 36 OFFER? THE SECOND PART OF THE ESSEX CASE

DID A CLAIMANT DO BETTER THAN ITS OWN PART 36 OFFER? THE SECOND PART OF THE ESSEX CASE

September 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Members Content, Part 36

Continuing with the issues about Part 36 in  Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387 (TCC) looked at in the earlier post. The judge went on to consider whether the claimant had, in fact,…

DATE ON LETTER DID NOT PREVENT IT BEING A VALID PART 36 OFFER: NO ESTOPPEL IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36 OFFERS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

DATE ON LETTER DID NOT PREVENT IT BEING A VALID PART 36 OFFER: NO ESTOPPEL IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36 OFFERS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

September 11, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd (No. 3) [2020] EWHC 2387 (TCC) Mr Justice Pepperall considered arguments relating to the validity of Part 36 offers. He found that the offer the claimant made was a valid Part…

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.