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 » April » 01
COST BITES 224 :  SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT'S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT'S COSTS DESCRIBED AS "INCREDIBLE)"

COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”

April 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO)  Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8.  The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…

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 448: THE FINANCIAL CONDUCT AUTHORITY HAS TO PAY THE FULL COSTS OF LOSING AN ACTION: ARGUMENTS ABOUT “CHILLING EFFECT” WERE NOT ESTABLISHED AND NOT EVIDENCED IN ANY EVENT
  • COST BITES 447 : SHOULD A DEFENDANT’S DERAILMENT OF AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERS BEING MADE AGAINST IT?
  • LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT “FALSE” AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (1): THREE IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES: YOU OWN THE WORK; AI IS NOT AN AUTHORITATIVE SOURCE OF LAW; IT IS NOT ENOUGH THAT THE CASE EXISTS…
  • MORE ON THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND “HALLUCINATING” CASE LAW AND LEGAL PRINCIPLES: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL GIVES A CLEAR VIEW…

Top Posts

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT, DENTON AND DELAY: SHOULD THE COURT REFUSE THE DEFENDANT RELIEF BECAUSE THEY HAD CAUSED UNNECESSARY DELAY AND COSTS?
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...)
DEALING WITH FISH FILES, PROCRASTINATION AND DELAY: THE LITIGATOR'S FRIEND: A REMINDER OF USEFUL LINKS, POSTS AND GUIDANCE AND SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: "BACKDATING LETTERS" TO DELIBERATELY MISLEAD COULD COST YOU: £4.58 MILLION IN THIS CASE: (METADATA COMES INTO PLAY NOW)
SHOULD THE COURT ORDER PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE? THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT SATISFIED AND THE COURT WOULD NOT EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN ANY EVENT

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.