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 » 28
COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY ON ANONYMITY AND REPORTING RESTRICTION ORDERS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES BROUGHT BY CHILDREN AND PROTECTED PARTIES

COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY ON ANONYMITY AND REPORTING RESTRICTION ORDERS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES BROUGHT BY CHILDREN AND PROTECTED PARTIES

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Personal Injury

This is the first of several posts that will look at the Court of Appeal judgment today in relation to the principles concerning applications for anonymity and reporting restrictions on children and protected parties involved in litigation. Here was have…

ANOTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT COURT BUNDLES: "IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE..."

ANOTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT COURT BUNDLES: “IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE…”

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

It is getting to the stage that I am concerned about receiving complaints from readers if this blog does not have a regular feature on bundles.  In fact we have not looked at a case since June, so we are…

SERVICE POINTS 4:  DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE: THE CONTRACTUAL METHOD OF SERVICE WAS UNFAIR AND THUS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015

SERVICE POINTS 4: DEFAULT JUDGMENT SET ASIDE: THE CONTRACTUAL METHOD OF SERVICE WAS UNFAIR AND THUS INVALID BECAUSE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Setting aside judgment

There are relatively few cases relating to service of proceedings by a contractually agreed method.  We have some significant issues considered in this case. Firstly whether the defendants were, in fact, parties to the contract that the claimant relied upon…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 31: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT TO TAKE A "PLEADING POINT", HOWEVER THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 31: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT TO TAKE A “PLEADING POINT”, HOWEVER THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are looking at a case where a claimant, in closing submissions, attempted to take a point that had never been pleaded.  The defendants stance was that it did not want to take a “pleading point”, however the judge found…

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

  • SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
  • SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)
  • COST BITES 391: TOO MUCH CORRESPONDENCE, GRADE C RATES NOT INCREASED AND “SO CALLED” SKELETON ARGUMENTS, WHICH REPEAT THE CONTENTS OF OVER-LENGTHY WITNESS STATEMENTS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
  • COST BITES 391: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION THAT SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THERE IS NO “RESTITUTIONARY” RIGHT TO DAMAGES WHERE THE CFA ITSELF MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES

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.