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 » November » 04
APPLYING FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: TWO CLASSIC MISTAKES AND A REMINDER OF 10 KEY POINTS

APPLYING FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: TWO CLASSIC MISTAKES AND A REMINDER OF 10 KEY POINTS

November 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The judgment in Diriye v Bojaj & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1400 shows, at least, two classic mistakes that people make when applying for relief from sanctions: not making the application promptly and not remedying the default properly (in fact…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER FINAL SUBMISSIONS REFUSED: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW PHOTOGRAPHS AFTER FINAL SUBMISSIONS REFUSED: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED

November 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Mullane v Davies [2020] EW Misc 25 (CC)  HHJ Jarman QC refused an application by a party to admit new photographs after closing submissions.  The Denton principles applied and militated against granting relief from sanctions. “Such noncompliance is serious,…

"THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK" EXCUSE DOESN'T WORK WELL IN COURT: THE JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THE WAY "SIGNED FOR 1ST CLASS" OPERATED BUT THEY WERE RIGHT TO REFUSE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIION

“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK” EXCUSE DOESN’T WORK WELL IN COURT: THE JUDGE MAY HAVE BEEN WRONG ABOUT THE WAY “SIGNED FOR 1ST CLASS” OPERATED BUT THEY WERE RIGHT TO REFUSE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: COURT OF APPEAL DECIION

November 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In Diriye v Bojaj & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 1400 the Court of Appeal held that the judges who heard a relief from sanctions hearing below were in error about the way that “Signed for 1st class” post operated, however…

SECOND DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS CLAIMANT INCURRED IN PURSUING FIRST DEFENDANT: AN UNUSUAL CASE

SECOND DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS CLAIMANT INCURRED IN PURSUING FIRST DEFENDANT: AN UNUSUAL CASE

November 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

In Patel v Barlows & Ors (No. 2) [2020] EWHC 2795 (Ch) HHJ Mithani QC (sitting as a High Court judge) found that a defendant was liable to pay the costs of another defendant where the claimant had had to…

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

  • PROVING THINGS 302 : THE COURT DREW ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO TEST THE METER IT WAS RELYING ON
  • SERVICE POINTS 57: PRESENCE IN THE JURISDICTION, A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG: UNSUCCESFUL CLAIMANT FACES A COSTS BILL OF £500,000…
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT WITNESS SUMMARIES
  • EXPERT WATCH 80: WHEN EXPERTS ARE ON THE METER: ONE EXPERT WAS NOT ALWAYS INDEPENDENT, THE OTHER DID NOT APPRECIATE HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
  • PERMISSION TO RELY ON A WITNESS SUMMARY: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO SHOW THE WITNESS HAS REFUSED TO GIVE A STATEMENT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OH, AND THAT WITNESS FORMERLY KNOWN AS “PRINCE”)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: "VERY LATE" ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT'S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 101: PUTTING A FIGURE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT SUM

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.