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 » October » 15
A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY DOES NOT AFFECT A CLAIMANT'S RIGHT TO RECOVER PROPERTY DAMAGES

A FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY DOES NOT AFFECT A CLAIMANT’S RIGHT TO RECOVER PROPERTY DAMAGES

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Senay & Anor v Mulsanne Insurance Company Ltd [2024] EWCC 12 HHJ Charman found that a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a personal injury action did not affect the claimant’s rights to recover damages for the property claim to…

WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN'T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING...

WHEN AN EXPERT TRIED TO USE ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE TO SUPPORT THEIR CALCULATIONS: COPILOT DOESN’T PREVENT THE EVIDENCE CRASHING…

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have considered the dangers of attempting to use artificial intelligence in litigation before.   The use of artificial intelligence in an expert report was considered b Schopf.S in the Surrogate’s Court, Saratoga County, in the “Matter of Weber”. “The mere…

SENIOR MASTER COOK’S GUIDANCE ON COST MANAGEMENT HEARINGS: A PIECE BY PIECE GUIDE (2):DELEGATION

SENIOR MASTER COOK’S GUIDANCE ON COST MANAGEMENT HEARINGS: A PIECE BY PIECE GUIDE (2):DELEGATION

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Webinar, Well being

We are continuing with our detailed examination of the Kings Bench Masters Cost Management Hearings Guidance Note.  This time we are looking at issues relating to delegation.  Costs budgeting and Cost Judges encourage delegation. The problem for many practitioners is that…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE "WEIGHT" (OR ABSENCE OF WEIGHT) TO BE GIVEN TO THOSE STATEMENTS

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE “WEIGHT” (OR ABSENCE OF WEIGHT) TO BE GIVEN TO THOSE STATEMENTS

October 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In  Oliver v Duffy [2024] EWHC 2590 Mrs Justice Hill considered an application for relief from sanction in a case where witnesses had not attended trial.  The judge granted relief from sanctions but went on to hold that those statements…

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

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.