Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2025 » March » 04
PROVING THINGS 256: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AFTER FALLING FROM A HORSE: THE ANIMALS ACT CONSIDERED

PROVING THINGS 256: CLAIMANT FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY AFTER FALLING FROM A HORSE: THE ANIMALS ACT CONSIDERED

March 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

This blog has looked at the judgment in Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB) several times in relation to procedural issues and assertions of dishonesty.  However the case, ultimately, was about a claimant who was injured when she fell…

"A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY": ATTEMPTS TO "REOPEN" ISSUES WHEN A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT ARE HARDLY EVER FRUITFUL - AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE

“A POINTLESS WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY”: ATTEMPTS TO “REOPEN” ISSUES WHEN A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT ARE HARDLY EVER FRUITFUL – AND CAN BE EXPENSIVE

March 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

There are a number of cases on this blog where litigants have attempted to “reopen” issues when a draft judgment is sent out to the parties for editorial corrections.  We have an example in the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies…

COURT FEES ARE GOING UP SOON: MOJ PRESS RELEASE STATES FEES WILL CHANGE IN EARLY APRIL 2025

COURT FEES ARE GOING UP SOON: MOJ PRESS RELEASE STATES FEES WILL CHANGE IN EARLY APRIL 2025

March 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Court fees, Members Content

A press release from the Ministry of Justice states that Court fees are to increase in early April (but there are some decreases).  The release can be found here.   “In early April 2025, and subject to parliamentary approval, the…

ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING BUNDLES: DIFFERENCES IN PAGINATION AND OTHER MISHAPS MEANT THAT A DECISION WAS UNFAIR AND THERE WAS AN ERROR OF LAW

ANOTHER CASE INVOLVING BUNDLES: DIFFERENCES IN PAGINATION AND OTHER MISHAPS MEANT THAT A DECISION WAS UNFAIR AND THERE WAS AN ERROR OF LAW

March 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  RP v Barnsley Metropolitan District Council [2025] UKUT 46 (AAC) Edward Jacobs, Upper Tribunal Judge, found that the errors with bundles at a First-Tier Tribunal led to unfairness and amounted to a an error of law. “There were, as…

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.