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

  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…
  • THE TCC GUIDANCE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A DETAILED EXAMINATION
  • NEW (4th) EDITION OF THE TECHNOLOGY AND CONSTRUCTION COURT GUIDE 2026: A QUICK GUIDE TO THE CHANGES AND THE NEW PARTS
  • AN INTRODUCTION TO THE CORONER’S COURT FOR PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYERS 2026: WEBINAR 17th JULY 2026

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.