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 » 28
THE JUDGMENT IN JALLA -V- SHELL: THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL: THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

THE JUDGMENT IN JALLA -V- SHELL: THE JUDGMENT OF LORD JUSTICE UNDERHILL: THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FOR DELAY

October 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading And Shipping Co. Ltd & Anor (Appeal 3: Refusal to Extend Time) [2021] EWCA Civ 1559 was covered in the previous post.  It is worthwhile looking at the shorter judgment…

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION NOT TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER: 28,000 CLAIMS BITE THE DUST

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION NOT TO EXTEND TIME FOR COMPLIANCE WITH COURT ORDER: 28,000 CLAIMS BITE THE DUST

October 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the decision today in  Jalla & Anor v Shell International Trading And Shipping Co. Ltd & Anor (Appeal 3: Refusal to Extend Time)[2021] EWCA Civ 1559 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to grant extensions of time…

IS A CLUB YARD A "PUBLIC PLACE"? REVERSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO INSURER DEFENDANTS

IS A CLUB YARD A “PUBLIC PLACE”? REVERSE SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED TO INSURER DEFENDANTS

October 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Brown v Fisk & Ors [2021] EWHC 2769 (QB) Master Dagnall granted reverse summary jugment to an insurer defendant. This involved consideration of whether a yard was a “public place” under s.151 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.   THE…

CLAIMANT WAS VICTIM OF FRAUD BUT ITS ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED: SECTION 32 (1) OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 CONSIDERED

CLAIMANT WAS VICTIM OF FRAUD BUT ITS ACTION IS STATUTE BARRED: SECTION 32 (1) OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 CONSIDERED

October 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content

In European Real Estate Debt Fund (Cayman) Ltd v Treon & Ors [2021] EWHC 2866 (Ch) Mr Justice Miles made many findings adverse to the defendants. However the claim failed because it was statute barred.  The judgment considers the issue…

IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN 4: THE "TOP 10" THINGS THAT KEEP LAWYERS AWAKE AT NIGHT

IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN 4: THE “TOP 10” THINGS THAT KEEP LAWYERS AWAKE AT NIGHT

October 28, 2021 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content

Last year I did a Top 10 of lawyer’s nightmares.  The intervening year has not changed much, although there may be more emphasis on the failure of remote hearing platforms… We’ll start with every lawyer’s nightmare.  Alastair David Time limits!!…

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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • DOES AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMOUNT TO A “STEP IN THE ACTION” SO THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS DISPLACED? AN IMPORTANT QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL
  • WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES – CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
  • CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 95: THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE HAD AWARDED THE CLAIMANTS MORE THAN THEIR PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 72: THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT IT TOO LATE TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT TRIAL NOT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING IT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE...
PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS

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.