One Response
Comments are closed.
Subscribe to Blog via Email
Join 16.8K other subscribers
Recent Posts
- HELPING THINGS GO SMOOTHLY IN 2026: THE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS WEBINAR SERIES
- COST BITES 321: THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES ARE NOT “SOMEWHAT OUT OF DATE”
- NEW YEAR: NEW GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: SEE THE DETAILS HERE: EFFECTIVE FROM YESTERDAY
- NEW SERIES FOR 2026: CIVIL PROCEDURE “BACK TO BASICS MONDAY”: STARTING ON …. MONDAY…
- WHEN A DAY LONG APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND INCURS COSTS OF OVER £1.3 MILLION (AND STILL THE BUNDLES AREN’T QUITE RIGHT…)
Top Posts
- NEW YEAR: NEW GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: SEE THE DETAILS HERE: EFFECTIVE FROM YESTERDAY
- WHEN A DAY LONG APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND INCURS COSTS OF OVER £1.3 MILLION (AND STILL THE BUNDLES AREN'T QUITE RIGHT...)
- COST BITES 321: THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES ARE NOT "SOMEWHAT OUT OF DATE"
- NEW SERIES FOR 2026: CIVIL PROCEDURE "BACK TO BASICS MONDAY": STARTING ON .... MONDAY...
- WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: SPECIAL TWIXMAS EDITION: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: CLAIMANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AS EVIDENCE
Archives
Blogroll
Books
Useful Links
Copyright
© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025.
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
“Not unjust to disallow”, is this a triple-negative?! That is not the test, CPR Part 36.17 (4) says: ‘The court will make the orders . . . unless it considers it unjust to do so’. Many binding cases have confirmed it is mandatory, unless there are facts and/or there is evidence and good reason in argument that convinces the Court it is unjust; this test or benchmark being high/very high; closeness of offers don’t or aren’t supposed to represent “unjust”. Are we back to Carver v BAA plc following which the rule changes were supposed to result in an objective, or ‘black and white’, test and take out as much, or all, of the subjective nature of Part 36 (accepting 36.17 wasn’t in the rules in 2008)?