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 » July » 03
YOU SIGNED IT - YOU OWN IT: CLAIMANT IN £1.2 MILLION CLAIM FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND RECOVERS NOTHING

YOU SIGNED IT – YOU OWN IT: CLAIMANT IN £1.2 MILLION CLAIM FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND RECOVERS NOTHING

July 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgments of HHJ Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Shaw -v- Wilde, copies of those judgments are available here shaw-v-wilde-judgment .  I will…

COMPETENCES, CORONERS COURTS AND ADVOCACY:  A REVIEW (AND A USEFUL WEBINAR ON THE 23rd JULY)

COMPETENCES, CORONERS COURTS AND ADVOCACY: A REVIEW (AND A USEFUL WEBINAR ON THE 23rd JULY)

July 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Webinar

In 2021 a working group of legal professionals published a set of Competencies for practitioners working in the Coroners’ Courts, in addition to providing a useful toolkit.  Concerns were raised following the experiences of the families of the victims of…

CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EXAGGERATING SYMPTOMS IS PLAINLY DISHONEST

CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: EXAGGERATING SYMPTOMS IS PLAINLY DISHONEST

July 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Karen Walden-Smith in Hamed -v- Ministry of Justice (County Court in Cambridge – 7th June 2024). The judge found that the claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in the presentation of their symptoms.  This…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM - ERRORS AND PROBLEMS 4: NOW IT IS THE DEFENDANTS THAT HAVE MADE MISTAKES: AN IMPROPERLY SERVED CLAIM FORM IS NOT A NULLITY

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM – ERRORS AND PROBLEMS 4: NOW IT IS THE DEFENDANTS THAT HAVE MADE MISTAKES: AN IMPROPERLY SERVED CLAIM FORM IS NOT A NULLITY

July 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

NB AN APPEAL WAS ALLOWED IN THIS CASE SEE Bellway Homes Ltd v The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House [2025] EWCA Civ 1347 We are continuing with the judgment in Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Ltd & Anor [2024]…

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

  • COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS…)
  • THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE: THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER DENTON PRINCIPLES EVEN IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET THEIR OWN PROPOSED TIMETABLE
  • EXPERT WATCH 71: “I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE”: THE EXPERT WAS “ADVOCATING” AND “HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE (SEPTEMBER 2018)
  • MORE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST A SOLICITOR BEING STRUCK OUT: THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY MEANT THERE WAS NO CASE: A CLAIMANT CANNOT HOPE THAT “SOMETHING WILL TURN UP” ON DISCLOSURE…

Top Posts

TUPE DOES NOT PASS ON LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS' FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT...)
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT "FALSE" AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS

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.