Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2024 » April » 08
BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE...): A REPEAT

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…): A REPEAT

April 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Members Content

Recent social media interest in a post I first wrote in April 2017 has led me to repeat it. The post concerned an aspect the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that did not made the…

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT ON LIMITATION: CHEQUES, PAYMENT AND DEMAND: SECOND DEMAND DOES NOT RE-OPEN THE LIMITATION PERIOD

AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT ON LIMITATION: CHEQUES, PAYMENT AND DEMAND: SECOND DEMAND DOES NOT RE-OPEN THE LIMITATION PERIOD

April 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In Agia v Skipton Building Society [2024] EW Misc 14 (CC) HHJ Malek considered a novel point relating to limitation. A limitation period cannot be “re-opened” by a customer making a demand on a bank many decades after a cheque…

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

  • PROVING THINGS 297 : THE COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNED A FINDING THAT A SOLICITOR WAS DISHONEST: RECKLESSNESS AND CUTTING CORNERS ARE NOT THE SAME AS DISHONESTY
  • WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT… APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE ? A GUIDE FOR APPLICANTS: 10 KEY POINTS WITH USEFUL LINKS
  • COST BITES 460: THE FACT THAT A DEFENDANT LOST ON A COUNTERCLAIM DID NOT PREVENT THE COURT FROM ORDERING THE CLAIMANT TO PAY 70% OF THEIR COSTS: ORDER UPHELD ON APPEAL TO THE HIGH COURT
  • EXPERT WATCH 76 : EXPERT EVIDENCE MAY ASSIST, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS REASONABLY REQUIRED: PERMISSION REFUSED IN AN APPEAL WORTH TENS OF MILLIONS
  • THE DISCLOSURE OF PART 36 OFFERS: IS THE DATE OF AN OFFER PART OF ITS “TERMS”? A QUESTION THAT HAS SOME PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES: THE HIGH COURT CONSIDERS THE ISSUE

Top Posts

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.