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 » August » 15
APPLICATION TO ENFORCE A TRIBUNAL AWARD WAS MADE TO THE WRONG COURT AND WAS SET ASIDE: CPR 3.10 DID NOT ASSIST WHEN THERE WAS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR GOING TO JURISDICTION

APPLICATION TO ENFORCE A TRIBUNAL AWARD WAS MADE TO THE WRONG COURT AND WAS SET ASIDE: CPR 3.10 DID NOT ASSIST WHEN THERE WAS A FUNDAMENTAL ERROR GOING TO JURISDICTION

August 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Enforcement, Members Content

Here we have a case where the claimant was found to have made a fundamental error of procedure when seeking to enforce an Employment Tribunal award. An application was made to the wrong court.  The County Court was the only court…

COST BITES 271: THE INABILITY TO RECOVER COSTS DOES NOT REPRESENT A BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE POWER TO AWARD COSTS HAS TO BE GIVEN BY STATUTE

COST BITES 271: THE INABILITY TO RECOVER COSTS DOES NOT REPRESENT A BREACH OF HUMAN RIGHTS: THE POWER TO AWARD COSTS HAS TO BE GIVEN BY STATUTE

August 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

We are looking at costs issues in a slightly unusual context. A decision of the Administrative Court on the issue of whether Parliament had given a body the jurisdiction to make a costs order.  The judgment also considers some significant…

COST (MEGA) BITES 370 : WE WANT AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS OF £3.75 MILLION - BUT WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE A DETAILED BREAKOWN OF WHY: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE ISSUES

COST (MEGA) BITES 370 : WE WANT AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS OF £3.75 MILLION – BUT WE DON’T WANT TO GIVE A DETAILED BREAKOWN OF WHY: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE ISSUES

August 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content

It is rare for the Court of Appeal to give a detailed judgment on costs. It is even rarer for it to consider the principles relating to interim payments on account of costs.  This is what we are looking at…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 29: THE DUTIES INVOLVED WHEN PLEADING FRAUD: CLAIMANT'S ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE "MORE CONSISTENT WITH HONESTY" ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 29: THE DUTIES INVOLVED WHEN PLEADING FRAUD: CLAIMANT’S ALLEGATIONS THAT WERE “MORE CONSISTENT WITH HONESTY” ON THE PART OF THE DEFENDANT

August 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

Here we are looking at a case where the claimant applied for permission to amend its Particulars so it could plead fraud. The application was refused.  It is a reminder of the onerous duties on a party when proposing 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 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.