One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- 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
- COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS – LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
- MAZUR RECORDING – NOW AVAILABLE
- MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON’T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT…
- THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ALLOW A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION AGAINST THE CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS TO PROCEED TO STAGE 2: MUCH TO THINK ABOUT HERE FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS (AND INDEED ANYONE WHO DRAFTS PLEADINGS)
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 10: THE STATUTORY DEFENCE TO THE CRIMINAL OFFENCE: WHY YOU (PROBABLY) WON'T GO TO JAIL: BUT THE POSITION GOING FORWARD MAY BE DIFFERENT...
- MAZUR RECORDING - NOW AVAILABLE
- COSTS GROUP AT KINGS CHAMBERS - LOOKING FOR NEW MEMBERS: SEE THE ADVERT HERE
- 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
- MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
The lack of any previously reported cases on this point is hardly surprising. The successful party’s representative would not normally wish to wash his dirty laundry in public, whilst the representative of the losing party would not want to publicise the decision for obvious reasons.
I myself successfully secured a decision from the Bristol County Court recovering pre Budget costs for a Claimant 18 months ago when at a previous firm. I inherited the file from a former colleague, so I am not tainted with having the failure of not filed a Budget in the first place.
Nevertheless the publication of Hardy v. Skeelis is welcome. And good law.