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 » 10
FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE: THE CLAIMANT "HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME" IN LOSING £1.2 MILLION IN DAMAGES

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE: THE CLAIMANT “HAS ONLY HIMSELF TO BLAME” IN LOSING £1.2 MILLION IN DAMAGES

July 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to barrister Matthew Snarr for sending me a  better copy of the judgments of HHJ Sephton KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Shaw -v- Wilde, a copy of that judgment is available here  Shaw v Wilde Final…

COST (MEGA) BITES 167: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (IV): "BUT YOURS IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MINE" IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT: COSTS BUDGETS COULD NOT BE COMPARED

COST (MEGA) BITES 167: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (IV): “BUT YOURS IS NEARLY AS BIG AS MINE” IS NOT A GOOD ARGUMENT: COSTS BUDGETS COULD NOT BE COMPARED

July 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We are continuing to look at the judgment in relation to the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB).  In this post we are considering the argument that since claimants’ budget was very similar to the defendants’…

COST (MEGA) BITES 166: AN EXAUSTING CASE (iii): “THE CLAIMANTS’ APPROACH TO BUDGETING IS REDOLENT OF FINANCIAL INCONTINENCE”

July 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The general observations made about the budgets in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) is of importance. The court was particularly scathing of the claimants’ budget. It also rejected the claimants’ contention that the defendants’ budget had been artificially…

COST (MEGA) BITES 165: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (ii): PROPORTIONALITY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM THE CASE IS WORTH £6 BILLION: THE PARTIES ARE NOT HANDED A BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERABLE COSTS

COST (MEGA) BITES 165: AN EXHAUSTING CASE (ii): PROPORTIONALITY WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CLAIM THE CASE IS WORTH £6 BILLION: THE PARTIES ARE NOT HANDED A BLANK CHEQUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF RECOVERABLE COSTS

July 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Mr Justice Constable and Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB).  This time by looking at the court’s consideration of issues of proportionality when…

COST (MEGA) BITES 164: AN EXHAUSTING CASE:COSTS BUDGETING WHEN THE BUDGETS TOTAL £650 MILLION (1): GENERAL PRINCIPLES

COST (MEGA) BITES 164: AN EXHAUSTING CASE:COSTS BUDGETING WHEN THE BUDGETS TOTAL £650 MILLION (1): GENERAL PRINCIPLES

July 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Constable sitting with Senior Costs Judge Saker in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB) contains much that is of interest to litigators. The judges budgeted a case where the claimants sought over £342…

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

  • ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCUSSION (ABOUT INTEREST…): THE STARTING POINT IS THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BEING OUT OF ITS MONEY (NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT…)
  • WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
  • COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD…
  • INTEREST ON DAMAGES: (1) GENERALLY; (2) AFTER THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER: THERE IS NO NEED TO FIND DISHONESTY OR SERIOUS CONDUCT TO AWARD ENHANCED INTEREST
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: RED FLAGS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS (1): THE WITNESS THAT GIVES THE COURT THEIR OPINION

Top Posts

COST BITES 435: £4 MILLION SPENT IN COSTS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL RECOVER A PENNY FROM THE OTHER: A "PYRHHIC" VICTORY LEADS TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS...
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
CAN DELAY IN APPLYING TO STRIKE OUT AN ACTION FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS IN ITSELF? THE DANGERS OF LETTING TIME GO BY
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...

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.