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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)

Top Posts

  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

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.