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 » May » 06
COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT SOLICITORS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: THE ONGOING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM PROMPTLY

COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT SOLICITORS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: THE ONGOING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM PROMPTLY

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Summary judgment

The case we are looking at today involves the consequences, for the solicitors, of failing to serve a claim form. In an earlier case extensions of time for service of a claim form were set aside.   The client instructed new…

DOES AN  ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM REQUIRED RE-SEALING AND FILING PRIOR TO SERVICE? AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONSIDERED

DOES AN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM REQUIRED RE-SEALING AND FILING PRIOR TO SERVICE? AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONSIDERED

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form

If a claimant serves a “amended” claim form that has not been resealed does that amount to good service? That issue was considered in the case we are considering today.  The result is of considerable practical significance. However it pays…

THE ROLE OF LEADING COUNSEL IN RELATION TO EXPERT REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: A CLIENT CAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THESE COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERABLE INTER PARTES

THE ROLE OF LEADING COUNSEL IN RELATION TO EXPERT REPORTS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS: A CLIENT CAN PAY FOR WHAT THEY WANT, BUT THESE COSTS WILL NOT BE RECOVERABLE INTER PARTES

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

How far should leading counsel, or counsel generally, be involved in the preparation of expert reports and witness statements?   One obvious reply is “not at all”, given that the evidence should come from the expert or witness.  These issues were…

COST BITES 236 : COSTS BUDGETING CAN BE RETROSPECTIVE : BUDGET CONSIDERED FROM THE DATE OF THE CCMC NOT 11 MONTHS LATER

COST BITES 236 : COSTS BUDGETING CAN BE RETROSPECTIVE : BUDGET CONSIDERED FROM THE DATE OF THE CCMC NOT 11 MONTHS LATER

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

Can the court ever set a costs budget retrospectively?  In this case the judge held that it could, further there were good reasons for doing so in this case.   “I do not accept that the Court is unable 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.