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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 77: CASE STRUCK OUT: THERE WAS “INSUFFICIENT PLEADINGS OF FACT FROM WHICH IT COULD BE INFERRED THAT ANY OF THE ALLEGATIONS HAVE A REAL PROSPET OF SUCCESS”
  • SERVICE POINTS 44: LOCAL AUTHORITY FAILS TO SERVE PROPERLY ON INTERESTED PARTIES TO PROPOSED APPEAL: THE WHOLE APPEAL FAILS
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: TIPS FOR TESTIFYING IN COURT: FROM THE UNITED STATE’S ATTORNEY’S OFFICE (MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA)
  • SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
  • SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.