Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2021 » February » 25
"BUILD IT AND WHO CARES IF THEY COME": THE REGISTER ON WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE COURT RULES AND LISTING ONLINE: THE ABSENCE OF "SCHOOL-GRADE WEB SKILLS"

“BUILD IT AND WHO CARES IF THEY COME”: THE REGISTER ON WHAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE COURT RULES AND LISTING ONLINE: THE ABSENCE OF “SCHOOL-GRADE WEB SKILLS”

February 25, 2021 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Civil Procedure, Members Content

An interesting explanation of why practitioners, and others, are having problems with access to rules of court and listing can be found in The Register – which provides news on technology for I T Professionals.  The Register reports that the…

AN APPLICATION THAT WAS "OPPORTUNISTIC AND WITHOUT MERIT": NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A LIMITATION DEFENCE: JARNDYCE -v- JARNDYCE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

AN APPLICATION THAT WAS “OPPORTUNISTIC AND WITHOUT MERIT”: NON-PAYMENT OF THE COURT FEE WITHIN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO A LIMITATION DEFENCE: JARNDYCE -v- JARNDYCE CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 25, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Limitation, Members Content, Striking out

The issue of non-payment, or under-payment, of court fees was considered by the Court of Appeal in the judgment today in  Butters & Anor v Hayes [2021] EWCA Civ 252. THE CASE During the course of an action the court…

THE RULES ARE BACK IN TOWN: ASKING WHERE THEY COULD BE FOUND…

February 25, 2021 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Civil Procedure, Members Content

After some, shall we say “adverse”, comments on the way that the Civil Procedure Rules are presented on the government website the “old” site has has been given a reprieve.   ON THE JUSTICE WEBSITE The Rules are still available…

WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE DOCK AGAIN: "DESPITE HAVING EXPRESSLY ADOPTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE IN CHIEF [HE] COULD NOT CONFIRM THAT IT REPRESENTED HIS EVIDENCE"

WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE DOCK AGAIN: “DESPITE HAVING EXPRESSLY ADOPTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN EVIDENCE IN CHIEF [HE] COULD NOT CONFIRM THAT IT REPRESENTED HIS EVIDENCE”

February 25, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mrs Justice Moulder in PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov & Ors [2021] EWHC 411 (Comm) provides a further example of the contention that obtaining witness evidence is  probably not part of the “stock in trade” of those who…

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

  • 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
  • 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)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • 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
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

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)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
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"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
COST BITES 466: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS ABILITY TO AWARD INTEREST ON COSTS TO LITIGANTS CONDUCTING LITIGATION ON A CFA

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.