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 » August
PROVING THINGS 236: THE DANGERS OF ADOPTING A FORMULAIC, TICK BOX APPROACH TO EVIDENCE

PROVING THINGS 236: THE DANGERS OF ADOPTING A FORMULAIC, TICK BOX APPROACH TO EVIDENCE

August 31, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The decision in Camfield & Ors v Uyiekpen & Anor (HOUSING – RENT REPAYMENT ORDER – evidence – pro forma witness statements) [2022] UKUT 234 (LC) is a working example of the dangers of “tick box” evidence.   “This case…

CASES ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM IN 2022: WHAT LITIGATORS CAN, AND MUST LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2022

CASES ON SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM IN 2022: WHAT LITIGATORS CAN, AND MUST LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 14th OCTOBER 2022

August 30, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Webinar

2022 has seen some significant decisions in relation to service of the claim form, with many claimants coming to grief due to basic errors made when serving, or attempting to serve. This webinar “One Day Out” but still too late:…

IT IS THE CLAIMANTS' JOB TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM ON TIME: HIGH COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANTS WERE ESTOPPED FROM TAKING THE POINT: CLAIMANTS' OTHER ARGUMENT COME TO GRIEF

IT IS THE CLAIMANTS’ JOB TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM ON TIME: HIGH COURT REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANTS WERE ESTOPPED FROM TAKING THE POINT: CLAIMANTS’ OTHER ARGUMENT COME TO GRIEF

August 30, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

We are always seeing new ways in which mistakes are made in relation to service of the claim form. In Lonsdale & Ors v Wedlake Bell Llp & Ors [2022] EWHC 2169 (QB)the claimants agreed an extension of time to…

THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN FINDING FACTS AND ASSESSING CREDIBILITY

THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT WITNESS IN FINDING FACTS AND ASSESSING CREDIBILITY

August 26, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The recent posts on the assessment of witness credibility led an expert witness to enquire whether it was the function of an expert to comment on issues relating to credibility. There have been a number of  cases where judges have…

MORE ON WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREDIBILITY IS MORE THAN DEMEANOUR: PLAUSABILITY "IS ALSO THE HALLMARK OF THE CONFIDENCE TRICKSTER DOWN THE AGES"

MORE ON WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREDIBILITY IS MORE THAN DEMEANOUR: PLAUSABILITY “IS ALSO THE HALLMARK OF THE CONFIDENCE TRICKSTER DOWN THE AGES”

August 25, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The previous post looked at witness credibility and the Gestmin principles. Litigators will also benefit enormously from reading  the talk given at Bristol University Law School  in December 2014 by Mr Justice Mostyn “The Craft of Judging and Legal Reasoning”. …

WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A SUMMARY OF THE APPROACH IN GESTMIN

WITNESS CREDIBILITY: A SUMMARY OF THE APPROACH IN GESTMIN

August 24, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

A post last week dealt with issues relating to the judicial assessment of credibility. Here we look at one aspect of that in more detail. That is the decision in  Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor…

THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT: 10 KEY POINTS

THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF: AN ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT: 10 KEY POINTS

August 23, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This week the blog looks at some basic procedural issues. Today we are looking at witness statements, in particular the mandatory requirement that a witness give the source of their information or belief.  There are many cases where this basic…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: RE-VISITING THE BASICS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS:

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: RE-VISITING THE BASICS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS:

August 22, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It is now just over 8 years since the Denton decision. Cases in relation to relief from sanction are still being reported regularly.  This is a good time to re-visit the advice given shortly after the case as to increasing…

COURT AWARDS CLAIMANT DAMAGES FOR HARASSMENT: FORTHCOMING WEBINAR ON THE LAW OF HARASSMENT AND THE PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER

August 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

In Thomas Hodson Hodson Developments Ltd v Person Unknown & Ors [2022] EWHC 1960 (QB) Mr Justice Jay awarded damages in a case where he found that the defendants had harassed the claimant.  An award was made for general damages…

JUST BECAUSE A MATTER IS TECHNICALLY COMPLICATED DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPERTS NEED ATTEND TRIAL

JUST BECAUSE A MATTER IS TECHNICALLY COMPLICATED DOES NOT MEAN THAT EXPERTS NEED ATTEND TRIAL

August 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Siemens Mobility Ltd v High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd [2022] EWHC 2190 (TCC) Mrs Justice O’Farrell considered an argument that the technical issues that arose in an action led to the need for experts to attend court. This argument…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: A REMINDER OF SOME KEY POINTS

WITNESS CREDIBILITY IN CIVIL LITIGATION: A REMINDER OF SOME KEY POINTS

August 17, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Many, if not most, civil cases that get to trial rest on issues of witness credibility rather than issues of law.   These are the cases and decisions that rarely make the law reports, but do reflect the underlying reality of…

AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE

AN EXPERT WHO TENDED TOWARDS BEING AN ADVOCATE: YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT IN ANOTHER CASE: THE NEED FOR A MEASURED RESPONSE

August 17, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

It may be indicative that there are such a large number of cases where judges have criticised experts for veering towards advocacy that I sometimes hesitate as to whether they merit writing about. However such a tendency was noted by…

COST BITES 15:  DEPARTING FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES FOR SPECIALIST WORK  DONE OUTSIDE LONDON

COST BITES 15: DEPARTING FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES FOR SPECIALIST WORK DONE OUTSIDE LONDON

August 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd & Anor v Rassam & Ors [2022] EWHC 2158 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson allowed a higher hourly rate for a solicitor working outside London. The rate allowed, for a Nottingham firm, was £350 an…

THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

August 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

There is one very tricky area of limitation law that I wanted to return to following the judgment in Coote -v- Ullstein [2022] EWHC 606 (QB). The case was looked at in detail here.  However I want to concentrate on the…

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED

August 11, 2022 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I was informed recently that permission to appeal was refused in the case of Greyson -v- Fuller.   I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for sending me a copy of the decision in Glendining -v- McCarthy,* where DDJ Causton…

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A "DUTY OF GOOD FAITH" TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

August 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Candey Ltd v Bosheh & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 Lord Justice Coulson rejected an argument that a client, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor, owed a duty of good faith to that solicitor. …

A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON

A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON

August 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Committal proceedings, Members Content

In Nambiar v Solitair Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1135 the Court of Appeal held that an appeal against a committal order should be struck out as an abuse of process.  Prior to sentencing the appellant had issued an earlier, identical,…

PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: "PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY"

PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”

August 9, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Holly Wright (& others) -v- Birmingham City Council District Judge Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge)* rejected an attempt by a defendant to obtain its costs where it accepted the claimants’ Part 36 offers late.  The judge held that…

AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS "WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS" AND "BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS": CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS...

AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…

August 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Committal proceedings, Injunctions, Members Content

For the second time today I am writing about an injunction case which failed because the claimant had failed to prove compliance with an order for service. However this particular case has more sinister overtones.  The claimant attempted to bring…

PROVING THINGS 235: PROVING SERVICE: COUNCIL'S WHOLESALE FAILURE TO SERVE CLAIM FORMS PROPERLY: ATTEMPTS AT PERSONAL SERVICE WERE A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS

PROVING THINGS 235: PROVING SERVICE: COUNCIL’S WHOLESALE FAILURE TO SERVE CLAIM FORMS PROPERLY: ATTEMPTS AT PERSONAL SERVICE WERE A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS

August 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Service of the claim form

An important point as to service of the claim form arose in the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in Thurrock Council v Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB). The claimant had issued proceedings against multiple defendants. It obtained an…

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Periodically I write reminders of the importance of being able to calculate time periods correctly. Sometime a miscalculation can lead to fundamental problems. AN EXAMPLE OF MISCALCULATION In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned…

"KAFKAESQUE" PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A "TANGLE" AND A "MUDDLE"

“KAFKAESQUE” PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A “TANGLE” AND A “MUDDLE”

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 201 the Court of Appeal resolved procedural issues which it described as a “muddle” and “kafkaesque”.  The issue was a simple one of whether a litigant was entitled to transcripts…

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We have looked, many times, at issues relating to procedure after the handing down of a draft judgment. The Court of Appeal judgment in George v Cannell & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1067 highlights one of the difficulties that arise. …

A COURT, ON A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT, CANNOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR ECONOMIC DURESS: DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

A COURT, ON A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT, CANNOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR ECONOMIC DURESS: DEFENDANT’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In  Lisa Jones v Richard Slade And Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 1968 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson overturned a decision that the court, on a Solicitors Act assessment, can determine issues of undue influence or economic duress.  The judge held that…

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman pointed out that the appellant’s argument in relation to pleading and burden of proof ran contrary to the rules.  There is…

"MISSING" WHATSAPP POSTS AND A PHONE LOST AT SEA: WHAT INFERENCES WOULD THE COURT DRAW?

“MISSING” WHATSAPP POSTS AND A PHONE LOST AT SEA: WHAT INFERENCES WOULD THE COURT DRAW?

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Members Content

The facts in Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB) are well known and have received wide publicity.  Here we look solely at the evidential issues relating to the “missing” evidence. In particular the amount of WhatsApp material that went…

COST BITES 14: TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT AWARD THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATION FOR FURTHER TIME

COST BITES 14: TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT AWARD THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATION FOR FURTHER TIME

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment in Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1955 (Comm) Ms Lesley Anderson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).   It is quite common for a party ordered to pay costs to…

CLAIMANT FAILS TO GET AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT HAD LOST THE FILE AND NOT SENT OUT A SEALED CLAIM FORM WITHIN THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD

CLAIMANT FAILS TO GET AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT HAD LOST THE FILE AND NOT SENT OUT A SEALED CLAIM FORM WITHIN THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. SEE THE BLOG POST ABOUT THE APPEAL DECISION HERE. The judgment of Robin Vos (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Walton v Pickerings Solicitors & Anor…

COST BITES 13: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION: TOO MANY LAWYERS, NO NEED FOR A QC

COST BITES 13: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION: TOO MANY LAWYERS, NO NEED FOR A QC

August 1, 2022 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

In Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2022] EWHC 1958 (Comm) the court carried out a summary assessment of the defendant’s costs, the grounds for the reductions are instructive.  They show the grounds on which costs are reduced on assessment….

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

  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A “NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE” (APRIL 2018)
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – BUT… : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON…

Top Posts

  • COST (MEGA) BITES 378: WHO WOULD SPEND £15,751,483 PLUS VAT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OF £16.91? (WELCOME TO THE SURREAL WORLD OF "COLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS": THE CAT ARE CONCERNED THAT LITIGATION IS BEING BROUGHT FOR THE LAWYERS & FUNDERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS - BUT... : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON...
  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 2: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PD57AC: "HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS"

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.