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 » July » 29
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 26: VERY LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED: APPLICANTS, TO SOME EXTENT, HOIST ON THEIR OWN PETARD OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE TRIAL DATE BEING AT RISK...

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 26: VERY LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED: APPLICANTS, TO SOME EXTENT, HOIST ON THEIR OWN PETARD OF COMPLAINTS ABOUT THE TRIAL DATE BEING AT RISK…

July 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Here we look at a case where the court refused thee applicants’ application for permission to amend its particulars of claim.  There are many points of interest to litigators.  The application was made too late and, in any event, did…

AMENDMENTS TO ONLINE CIVIL MONEY CLAIMS PILOT COME INTO FORCE TODAY: PLUS AN IMPORTANT LETTER FROM HMCTS

AMENDMENTS TO ONLINE CIVIL MONEY CLAIMS PILOT COME INTO FORCE TODAY: PLUS AN IMPORTANT LETTER FROM HMCTS

July 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Rule Changes

The 187th Update Practice Direction Amendments come into force today.  These make changes to the Online Civil Claims Pilot.  These make important changes and should be read in conjunction with the letter from HMCTS dated 25th July 2025 which is…

NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2025 AND THE 1ST OCTOBER 2025 (1): COSTS

NEW RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 12TH SEPTEMBER 2025 AND THE 1ST OCTOBER 2025 (1): COSTS

July 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

Here we look at the latest statutory instrument which makes changes to the rules.  We are starting by looking at the changes in relation to the rules relating to costs. These provisions come into force on the 1st October 2025….

EXPERT WATCH 2: THE EXPERT WHO REPORTED WITHOUT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE TO HAND AND THEN WOULD NOT RECOGNISE HE HAD MADE A MISTAKE

July 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we look at a case where an expert reported without having all the relevant evidence to hand. In fact he only saw the claimant’s witness statements a few days before the trial. This, added to other issues, led 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 71: “I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE”: THE EXPERT WAS “ADVOCATING” AND “HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE (SEPTEMBER 2018)
  • MORE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST A SOLICITOR BEING STRUCK OUT: THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY MEANT THERE WAS NO CASE: A CLAIMANT CANNOT HOPE THAT “SOMETHING WILL TURN UP” ON DISCLOSURE…
  • WILL AN INSURER PAY FOR THIS? ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS IN LITIGATION CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 30th OCTOBER 2026
  • THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS

Top Posts

TUPE DOES NOT PASS ON LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS' FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT...)
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT "FALSE" AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS

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.