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 » 16

A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are looking at a High Court decision that could have major ramifications for the way in which firms of solicitors organise their practices. In particular in relation to the qualifications of staff who conduct litigation, what is meant by…

COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID - FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL'S FEES IN THE EQUATION...

COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

We are continuing with our consideration of  Damages-Based Agreements that were found to be unlawful.  This time the judge considered the position in relation to counsel’s fees and the Regulations.  The judge held that the attempt to charge counsel’s fees…

COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)

COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees

Today we are looking at a case where the appellants claim to £1.3 million in costs was lost because the Damages-Based Agreements were found to be unlawful and unenforceable.  It provides a salutary lesson to all those who are involved…

ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?

ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

It is not unknown for debtors to seek to transfer property to another person in an attempt to avoid a charging order being made against it. We see see such a case here.  A house, initially in the sole name…

COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM...)

COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM…)

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

Here we are looking at a substantial reduction in a budget. The claimants here sought £39,967.50 for each meeting of the solicitors co-ordinating group litigation.  The court was not happy with this… (When you are claiming £39,967.5o a meeting for…

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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • DOES AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMOUNT TO A “STEP IN THE ACTION” SO THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS DISPLACED? AN IMPORTANT QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL
  • WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES – CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
  • CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 95: THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE HAD AWARDED THE CLAIMANTS MORE THAN THEIR PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 72: THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT IT TOO LATE TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT TRIAL NOT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING IT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS
THE SRA CANNOT COMPEL A SOLICITOR TO DISCLOSE A CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

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.