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 » 22
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 11: THE COURT WON'T STRIKE OUT PARTS OF THE DEFENCE BECAUSE... ITS ACTUALLY THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM THAT DON'T MAKE MUCH SENSE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 11: THE COURT WON’T STRIKE OUT PARTS OF THE DEFENCE BECAUSE… ITS ACTUALLY THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM THAT DON’T MAKE MUCH SENSE

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

NB – SEE THE APPEAL JUDGMENT ON ONE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IN Prudence v Gloucestershire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2026] EWHC 96 (KB) Here we are looking at a judgment that is all about statements of case (or at…

EXPERTS IN COURT: "TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION" AND "SEEKING TO ADVOCATE" ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL...

EXPERTS IN COURT: “TRESPASSING ON THE JUDICIAL FUNCTION” AND “SEEKING TO ADVOCATE” ON BEHALF OF PARTY: THIS RARELY ENDS WELL…

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is no shortage of posts on this blogs where judges are critical of expert witnesses. Today we look at another such case where the judge found the expert’s approach “concerning” and went on to state that the expert was…

SERVICE OF INJUNCTIONS: THE COURT ALLOWS SERVICE BY EMAIL RATHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE

SERVICE OF INJUNCTIONS: THE COURT ALLOWS SERVICE BY EMAIL RATHER THAN PERSONAL SERVICE

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

Injunctions normally have to be served in person.  Here we are looking at a short point as to when it is permissible to serve an injunction by email.     THE CASE  Chanel Ltd v Skeens [2025] EWHC 619 (KB)…

THE WITNESS STATEMENT "IS IN LARGE PART UNRELIABLE AND ALSO LACKS CREDIBILITY": THE ENDURING PROBLEM OF "RETROSPECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION"

THE WITNESS STATEMENT “IS IN LARGE PART UNRELIABLE AND ALSO LACKS CREDIBILITY”: THE ENDURING PROBLEM OF “RETROSPECTIVE RECONSTRUCTION”

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

We have looked many times at the problems caused by witness statements, including when a witness “tries” to remember matters they really cannot, or reconstructs what they feel did happen (or should have happened). This is a feature of all…

PROVING THINGS 261: PROVING FUTURE INTENTIONS: AN INTENTION TO HAVE MEDICAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT PRIVATELY

PROVING THINGS 261: PROVING FUTURE INTENTIONS: AN INTENTION TO HAVE MEDICAL OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT PRIVATELY

May 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

Today we are looking at a case where the defendant appealed against a decision that the claimant could recover the future cost of medical treatment to be carried out on a private basis.  Statute states that there is no duty…

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 APPEAL OVER A TIME ESTIMATE FOR TRIAL: THIS SHOULD NOT LAST 15 DAYS, NOR WILL IT BE DONE IN 5: EIGHT DAYS REMAINS THE CORRECT CONCLUSION
  • EXPERT WATCH 48: HOW AN EXPERT WITNESS CAN LOSE CREDIBILITY AT TRIAL (IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE – BUT THE PRINCIPLES ARE UNIVERSAL…)
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: A LITIGANT CANNOT APPLY TO SET ASIDE A DECISION MADE WITHOUT A HEARING WHEN THEY SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR THIS AND HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS
  • THE APIL FATAL ACCIDENTS WEBINAR SERIES 2026: SEVEN WEBINARS TO HELP NEGOTIATE THIS DIFFICULT AREA OF LAW AND PRACTICE
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026

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.