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 » 29
CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2024: KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED:  WEBINAR 6th AUGUST

CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2024: KEY ISSUES CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 6th AUGUST

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Webinar, Well being

There are particulars challenges and difficulties facing a practitioner in cases where children are the only or primary dependants in a fatal claim. This webinar addressed the key issues, in relation to the law, practice and procedure and helping with…

A DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO SEEK TO AVOID SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: IT WON'T WIN YOU ANY HONOURS BUT IT IS NOT WRONG...

A DEFENDANT IS ENTITLED TO SEEK TO AVOID SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: IT WON’T WIN YOU ANY HONOURS BUT IT IS NOT WRONG…

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Webinar

In Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews rejected an argument that a different costs order should be made because the defendant did not co-operate in relation to service of proceedings upon her.   Seeking to avoid service…

HARASSMENT PROCEEDINGS: PART 7 AND NOT PART 8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED

HARASSMENT PROCEEDINGS: PART 7 AND NOT PART 8 SHOULD HAVE BEEN USED

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are often procedural difficulties when a claimant bringing a claim for harassment has to use the Part 8 procedure (as this is prescribed by CPR 65.28(1)(a)).  However as the judgment of Aidan Eardley KC in  Pattinson v Winsor [2024]…

“THE EXTENT OF EVIDENCE… WENT FAR BEYOND THAT PERMITTED BY THE RULES IN RELATION TO EXPERT EVIDENCE”: COMMENTS FROM ANTOTHER JURISDICTION

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Education, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

On the rare occasions we look at procedure in jurisdictions outside England and Wales it is often in relation to expert evidence.  Other jurisdictions have similar issues in relation to experts, particularly argumentative experts.  An example can be seen in…

PERSONAL INJURY: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS: CONTEMPT OF COURT: RUGBY, LIFTING WEIGHTS AND... SOCIAL MEDIA

PERSONAL INJURY: EXAGGERATED CLAIMS: CONTEMPT OF COURT: RUGBY, LIFTING WEIGHTS AND… SOCIAL MEDIA

July 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Committal proceedings, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Wye Valley NHS Trust v Murphy [2024] EWHC 1912 (KB) Mr Justice Mould found the defendant in contempt of court for exaggerating the extent of his injuries when bringing a claim for damages for personal injury.  An interesting aspect…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?

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.