Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2022 » June » 20
"SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE" AND FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WE'LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT BUT WE DON'T SEE IT HERE: JUDGE'S DECISION NOT TO IMPOSE USUAL PENALTIES OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

“SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE” AND FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: WE’LL KNOW IT WHEN WE SEE IT BUT WE DON’T SEE IT HERE: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO IMPOSE USUAL PENALTIES OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

In Woodger v Hallas [2022] EWHC 1561 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision of the Circuit Judge that the usual principles of a finding of fundamental dishonesty should not apply to the claimant.  The judgment involves a consideration…

COSTS, INTEREST ON COSTS AND COSTS ON COSTS: SEE HOW THEY GROW: £65,000 BECOMES £185,000

COSTS, INTEREST ON COSTS AND COSTS ON COSTS: SEE HOW THEY GROW: £65,000 BECOMES £185,000

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

There is a short passage in the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in  Blacklion Law LLP v Amira Nature Foods Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1500 (Ch) that shows one of the dangers of…

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN SIGNING A DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: A FEW CASES CONSIDERED

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT WHEN SIGNING A DOCUMENT ON BEHALF OF A CLIENT: A FEW CASES CONSIDERED

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

It is also useful to issue periodic reminders of the dangers that are involved when a solicitor signs a document on behalf of their client. Here we look at several cases and the rules themselves.   The observations of the…

VERY LATE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS REFUSED: ADMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY REMAINED BINDING

VERY LATE APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSIONS REFUSED: ADMISSIONS MADE IN REPLY REMAINED BINDING

June 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

I am grateful to John De Waal QC for pointing out the procedural aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Edwin Johnson in Valley View Health Centre (a firm) & Ors v NHS Property Services Ltd [2022] EWHC 1393 (Ch)….

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

  • SERVICE POINTS 41: THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION FOLLOWING INVALID SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A POINT FOR PRACTITIONERS TO WATCH…
  • SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE “LAST KNOWN ADDRESS”: THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • THE DEFENDANT’S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON’T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A USEFUL ENCAPSULATION OF THE COURT’S APPROACH TO DISPUTED WITNESS EVIDENCE: WITNESSES CAN LIE FOR VARIOUS REASONS

Top Posts

  • THE DEFENDANT'S ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER FROM THE CLAIMANT DID NOT PREVENT A SECOND ACTION IN RELATION TO A DIFFERENT (BUT RELATED) ISSUE
  • SERVICE POINTS 41: THE DEFENDANTS REQUIRED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION FOLLOWING INVALID SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: A POINT FOR PRACTITIONERS TO WATCH...
  • SERVICE POINTS 40: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT VALID NEITHER WAS SERVICE AT THE "LAST KNOWN ADDRESS": THE CLAIMANT HAD TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE AS TO HIS STATE OF KNOWLEDGE
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • COST BITES 384: THE LOSER OF AN APPLICATION USUALLY PAYS AND THERE HAS TO BE A GOOD REASON IF THEY DON'T: APPEAL COURT OVERTURNS A DECISION TO THE CONTRARY

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.