2 Responses
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
- 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"
- MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
- THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE "OPINION" EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
- THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: SEE THEM HERE: UPDATED FOR 2026 RATES
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
There is another point, not really discussed in the judgment, which is that this is much more dubious. It is possible that the Defendant was playing a tactical game of trying to make an admission, just before the inquest, so that the claimant would be in a weaker position on recovering the costs of the inquest so would thus increase the chances of the claimant not being represented. It also appears to have informed the approach proposed in terms of the calling of witnesses. For the defendant to seek to resile from that position, and to misstate the basis upon which it was doing so, is much more egregious than the Master seems to have thought.