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 » October » 11
THE DENTON CRITERIA: LATE APPEALS, NEW EVIDENCE AND PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A PROPOSED APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO TWO BITES OF THE CHERRY

THE DENTON CRITERIA: LATE APPEALS, NEW EVIDENCE AND PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A PROPOSED APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO TWO BITES OF THE CHERRY

October 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of HHJ Karen Walden-Smith in Nagpal v Kumar [2021] EW Misc 17 (CC) illustrates the difficulties faced by a party that requires permission to appeal out of time and wishes to adduce new evidence at the proposed appeal….

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2021

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2021

October 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Webinar, Witness statements

As part of a series of webinars on Civil Evidence I am presenting a webinar on witness statements on the 14th October 2021. Looking at rules and guidance relating to witness evidence and the importance of complying with them. Booking…

GRIFFITHS -V- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 3: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT HAVE A FAIR TRIAL: THE COURTS SHOULD NOT ALLOW LITIGATION BY AMBUSH: THE DISSENTING JUDGMENT

October 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

NB THE DECISION IN THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT. THE SUPREME COURT ESSENTIALLY AGREEING WITH THE DISSENTING JUDGMENT OF BEAN LJ CONSIDERED IN THIS POST. THE SUPREME COURT DECISION IS DISCUSSED HERE. This is the third post…

GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 2: THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AN EXPERT'S REPORT WITHOUT REASONING IS "ALL BUT WORTHLESS"

GRIFFITHS -v- TUI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL 2: THE OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL: AN EXPERT’S REPORT WITHOUT REASONING IS “ALL BUT WORTHLESS”

October 11, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

NB THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT – SEE THE DECISION HERE. This is the second post about the Court of Appeal decision in   Griffiths v Tui (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 1442.  Here we…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CORONER’S COURT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS 2026: WEBINAR 17th JULY 2026
  • EXPERT WATCH 57: JUDGE DECIDES THAT AN EXPERT, THAT HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THEIR DUTIES TO THE COURT, SHOULD BE NAMED; “HE HAD A CHOICE TO INVOLVE HIMSELF IN THESE PROCEEDINGS AND TO BE PAID FOR DOING SO…”
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17(2): LIABILITY CATCHUP (2): A SUCCESSFUL STRESS AT WORK CLAIM CONSIDERED
  • A JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE PREVENTED A DEFENDANT TENANT SPEAKING AT A POSSESSION HEARING JUST BECAUSE THEY HAD NOT FILED A DEFENCE: THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES HAVE PRIMACY OVER A PEREMPTORY ORDER
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.