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 » 29
DEALING WITH THE COUNTER-SCHEDULE AND THE DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO DAMAGES: WEBINAR 7th MAY 2025

DEALING WITH THE COUNTER-SCHEDULE AND THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS IN RELATION TO DAMAGES: WEBINAR 7th MAY 2025

April 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

Much of the task of the claimant lawyer concentrates on the task of building up the claim for damages to ensure proper compensation. However it is essential that the lawyer if fully aware of the arguments, case law and principles…

COST BITES 233: VARDY -v- ROONEY: SOME EXTRA TIME ON THE COSTS ISSUES: CLAIMANT'S CONDUCT DID NOT CROSS THE LINE -NO REDUCTION OF COSTS OF APPEAL

COST BITES 233: VARDY -v- ROONEY: SOME EXTRA TIME ON THE COSTS ISSUES: CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT DID NOT CROSS THE LINE -NO REDUCTION OF COSTS OF APPEAL

April 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

In Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 1027 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh made some further costs rulings following the dismissal of the defendant’s appeal on issues relating to costs.  Firstly he rejected the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s costs should be…

DEFENDANT GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE : "I AM IN NO DOUBT THAT I SHOULD GRANT THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF OF ONE DAY..."

DEFENDANT GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE : “I AM IN NO DOUBT THAT I SHOULD GRANT THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF OF ONE DAY…”

April 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Ahmad v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2025] EWHC 936 (Pat) Mr Justice Mellor granted the defendant an extension of one day to file a defence, this had the effect of making the defendant’s applications to strike…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AFTER BREACHING A PEREMPTORY ORDER AND FAILING TO PLEAD A CASE PROPERLY: CLAIMANT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE (IN PART)

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AFTER BREACHING A PEREMPTORY ORDER AND FAILING TO PLEAD A CASE PROPERLY: CLAIMANT ALLOWED TO CONTINUE (IN PART)

April 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

We are looking again at the judgment in  Michele Carrington v American International Group UK Limited [2025] EWHC 1010 (TCC).  This time in relation to the issue of relief from sanctions.  The claimant had failed to comply with a peremptory order  to…

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

  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT – AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE’S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
COST BITES 466: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS ABILITY TO AWARD INTEREST ON COSTS TO LITIGANTS CONDUCTING LITIGATION ON A CFA

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.