One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 35.2K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 33: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (2): THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTER TO THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE
- DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR…
- MAZUR MATTERS 32: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (1): THE LETTER FROM THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE TO THE MINISTER
- COST BITES 305: THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST A PARTY WHEN TWO ACTIONS WERE “JOINED” AND NOT “CONSOLIDATED”: AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE RULES
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: DISTILLING THE GESTMIN GUIDELINES: WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? (AND WHAT PART OF THEIR EVIDENCE ACCEPTED?)
Top Posts
- MAZUR MATTERS 33: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (2): THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTER TO THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE
- COST BITES 305: THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST A PARTY WHEN TWO ACTIONS WERE "JOINED" AND NOT "CONSOLIDATED": AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE RULES
- MAZUR MATTERS 32: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (1): THE LETTER FROM THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE TO THE MINISTER
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: DISTILLING THE GESTMIN GUIDELINES: WHICH WITNESS WILL BE BELIEVED? (AND WHAT PART OF THEIR EVIDENCE ACCEPTED?)
- DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR...
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
Years ago I instructed counsel, I can’t remember what it was in connection with. At some point quite late in the day an alternative cause of action came up. I asked why she hadn’t put it in the pleadings and she said she hadn’t been instructed to. Needless to say neither she nor her chambers were used again, and since then I always add a line at the end of the brief to the effect that if anything else relevant that hasn’t been referred to comes to mind “counsel will advise accordingly.”
About 15 years ago I sent an instruction to another barrister. In the covering letter I asked for an estimate of cost. He did a couple of hours work and then put in a report and a bill. When I asked what had happened to the estimate he said he hadn’t been told I wanted one. I paid because they threatened to blacklist me, but now I make it quite clear in the covering letter that the instruction or brief is submitted on condition that no expense is incurred until estimates have been received and approved (I’ve never been back to that chambers either).
Before email became widespread I notified a clerk last thing one Friday afternoon that payment had been received for a Monday morning 10.30 hearing. The barrister (very recent call) had asked me to let her know so that she could prepare over the weekend. On the Monday morning the barrister called and asked whether I still needed her for the hearing, the clerk having failed to pass on the message. We tend to communicate with counsel directly now so it’s very unlikely ever to happen again, but always ask for such messages to be acknowledged, and if you don’t get a reply call to check.