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 » 19
THE CITATION OF FALSE AUTHORITIES: THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A DATE IN COURT ON THE 23rd MAY

THE CITATION OF FALSE AUTHORITIES: THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A DATE IN COURT ON THE 23rd MAY

May 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

I have written several times about the remarkable decision in  Frederick Ayinde, R (on the application of) v The London Borough of Haringey [2025] EWHC 1040 (Admin) where false authorities were presented to the court.  I have also written about …

COST BITES 238: WHEN A CLIENT DISPUTES THE SOLICITOR'S COSTS: THE JUDGE'S VIEW ON MEMORY, WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS DRAFTED "WITH THE GUIDING HAND OF THE CLAIMANTS' SOLICITOR"

COST BITES 238: WHEN A CLIENT DISPUTES THE SOLICITOR’S COSTS: THE JUDGE’S VIEW ON MEMORY, WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS DRAFTED “WITH THE GUIDING HAND OF THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITOR”

May 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

Today we are looking at part of a judgment about costs.  Ten claimants had been selected (out of 223) to give evidence challenging a solicitor’s deduction of success fees. In fact only four of the claimants attended court to give…

PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 4: THE EMPLOYER WAS IN BREACH OF DUTY WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED CROSSING THE ROAD

PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 4: THE EMPLOYER WAS IN BREACH OF DUTY WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED CROSSING THE ROAD

May 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Personal Injury

Last week we looked at a  case where someone was injured in their workplace, but there was no breach.  Today we are looking a case where an employee was injured crossing the road and it was held that the employer…

CLAIM WAS (ARGUABLY) ISSUED IN TIME WHEN IT ARRIVED AT THE COURT: LATE SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

CLAIM WAS (ARGUABLY) ISSUED IN TIME WHEN IT ARRIVED AT THE COURT: LATE SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION

May 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Jurisdiction,, Limitation, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Today we are looking at a case that raises important issues.  The judge decided that calling someone gay is not defamatory. However here we are not concerned with the substantive issues but two procedural issues raised in the case. Firstly…

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

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.