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 » December » 03
CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: A PARTY MORE INTERESTED IN APPEALING A COURT ORDER THAN COMPLYING WITH ITS TERMS...

CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: A PARTY MORE INTERESTED IN APPEALING A COURT ORDER THAN COMPLYING WITH ITS TERMS…

December 3, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  Day v Womble Bond Dickinson (UK) LLP [2021] EWHC 3236 (QB) Deputy Master Toogood refused a claimant’s application for relief from sanctions when there had been a four month delay in applying for permission to amend the Particulars of…

SOCIAL MEDIA AND DISCLOSURE:  A REMINDER OF THE SOLICITOR'S DUTIES

SOCIAL MEDIA AND DISCLOSURE: A REMINDER OF THE SOLICITOR’S DUTIES

December 3, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Disclosure, Members Content

The short judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Lock v Ravi-Shankar [2021] EWHC 3247 (QB) highlights a number of important issues in relation to the solicitor’s duty, disclosure and social media in particular. “It is necessary for solicitors to…

"IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ORAL ADVOCACY TO REDUCE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO LITTLE MORE THAN A SERIES OF REFERENCES THAT A JUDGE CAN THEN LEFT TO FIND ACROSS A VAST BUNDLE"

“IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE ORAL ADVOCACY TO REDUCE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS TO LITTLE MORE THAN A SERIES OF REFERENCES THAT A JUDGE CAN THEN LEFT TO FIND ACROSS A VAST BUNDLE”

December 3, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The closing lines of the judgment of HHJ Pelling QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in Libyan Investment Authority v Credit Suisse International & Ors [2021] EWHC 2684 (Comm) highlight many issues in relation to civil advocacy. In particular…

WHEN A CLAIMANT TRIES TO USE A REPLY TO INTRODUCE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION: PERMISSION TO AMEND REPLY REFUSED

WHEN A CLAIMANT TRIES TO USE A REPLY TO INTRODUCE A NEW CAUSE OF ACTION: PERMISSION TO AMEND REPLY REFUSED

December 3, 2021 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Powis Street Estates (No 3) Ltd v Wallace LLP & Anor [2021] EWHC 3269 (Ch) Deputy Master McQuail considered that parts of a Reply was an attempt to introduce a new cause of action.  The claimant was not given…

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

  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT – AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE’S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

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.