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 » November » 17
THE COURT OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL APPLICATION WAS BEFORE THE COURT

THE COURT OF APPEAL AND FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED EVEN THOUGH NO FORMAL APPLICATION WAS BEFORE THE COURT

November 17, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Court fees, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  the judgment in  Boodia v Yatsyna [2021] EWCA Civ 1705 the Court of Appeal allowed a decision that a Circuit Judge had made with a heavy heart.  The judgment reviews the cases in relation to non-payment, or late payment,…

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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS : THE COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT ON A POINT NOT PLEADED: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STATEMENT OF THE AGREED ISSUES FOR TRIAL
  • COST BITES 450: IF THE CLAIMANT SUCCEEDED ON A CASE THAT WAS NOT PLEADED SHOULD IT THEN PAY THE DEFENDANTS’ COSTS?
  • LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (5): “THE HEARING WAS A SALUTARY LESSON IN HOW AI MAY PROMPT LAY PERSONS TO SAY THE RIGHT THINGS IN PLEADINGS, BUT CANNOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THOSE STATEMENTS”
  • THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: USEFUL GUIDANCE AND AN ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST WHEN MAKING AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT…
  • A COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE: ANOTHER CASE THAT EMPHASISES THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT THESE APPLICATIONS: A LAWYER CANNOT SIMPLY PROMOTE A “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BUT MOST ACT OBJECTIVELY AND CAREFULLY

Top Posts

THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS...)
EXPERT WATCH 71: "I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE": THE EXPERT WAS "ADVOCATING" AND "HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL"
CLAIM AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS STRUCK OUT: THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN...
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE: THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER DENTON PRINCIPLES EVEN IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET THEIR OWN PROPOSED TIMETABLE

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.