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 » September » 03
MEMBER NEWS: "ON DEMAND" CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS AVAILABLE TO WATCH AT A TIME AND PLACE TO SUIT YOU: WITH DISCOUNTS FOR CLB MEMBERS

MEMBER NEWS: “ON DEMAND” CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS AVAILABLE TO WATCH AT A TIME AND PLACE TO SUIT YOU: WITH DISCOUNTS FOR CLB MEMBERS

September 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Webinar, Witness statements

Last week we looked at webinars coming up which may be of interest to CLB readers.  CLB members can obtain a discount on these webinars.  The same discount applies to webinars which are now available “on demand”.  These webinars are…

COST BITES 280: THE PERILS OF INCLUDING A VAT IN A BILL BY MISTAKE: THE COURT WOULD NOT DEPART FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES: NEVERTHELESS £202,000 ALLOWED ON ASSESSMENT FOR A ONE DAY APPEAL

COST BITES 280: THE PERILS OF INCLUDING A VAT IN A BILL BY MISTAKE: THE COURT WOULD NOT DEPART FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES: NEVERTHELESS £202,000 ALLOWED ON ASSESSMENT FOR A ONE DAY APPEAL

September 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

We are looking at a case where the judge summarily assessed costs with no input from the paying party.  The receiving party had made a mistake by claiming VAT (something only appreciated when the judge raised the question).  There was…

EXPERT WATCH 12: "THE EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES HAD PROBLEMS": THE JUDGE PREFERS THE DEFENDANT'S EXPERT

EXPERT WATCH 12: “THE EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR BOTH SIDES HAD PROBLEMS”: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE DEFENDANT’S EXPERT

September 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We look here at an unusual set of facts relating to the judge’s assessment of expert evidence.  Firstly the judge found that the claimant’s expert had no real experience of the specific issue in question in the action; she also…

COST BITES 279: COSTS AWARDED IN WHAT IS NORMALLY  A "NO COSTS" JURISDICTION: THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)

COST BITES 279: COSTS AWARDED IN WHAT IS NORMALLY A “NO COSTS” JURISDICTION: THE FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL (PROPERTY CHAMBER)

September 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

It is worthwhile taking a look at cases where costs are awarded in cases where there normally would be no inter party order for costs.  We look at such a case here, in the First Tier Tribunal.  On appeal 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.