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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • 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”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE (SEPTEMBER 2018)
  • MORE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST A SOLICITOR BEING STRUCK OUT: THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY MEANT THERE WAS NO CASE: A CLAIMANT CANNOT HOPE THAT “SOMETHING WILL TURN UP” ON DISCLOSURE…
  • WILL AN INSURER PAY FOR THIS? ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS IN LITIGATION CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 30th OCTOBER 2026
  • 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

Top Posts

TUPE DOES NOT PASS ON LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS' FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT...)
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT "FALSE" AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
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
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS

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.