One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
- PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
- “OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS
Top Posts
- AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP - BUT HINDER: "I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT'S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME"
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE "OPINION" EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
- CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
- PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY...)
- MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
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
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
What an absurd process civil litigation has become. Every `improvement’ seems just to make things even more complicated and obscure.
These ludicrous rules achieve nothing other than satellite litigation. Within reason parties should be free to give their evidence as they see fit, not have it hobbled by such artificial constraints as this. having ins=dividual statements analysed paragraph by paragraph for compliance is just bloody ridiculous!