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

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.