Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2025 » October » 22

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE TO A WITNESS: THE PRINCIPLES SUMMARISED IN THE HIGH COURT

October 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Earlier this week we looked at a case where difficulties occurred because the claimant’s case was not put to a witness for the defendant.    Here I want to highlight the key parts  of that judgment relating to the need…

SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A "MIXED" CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL

SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A “MIXED” CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL

October 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, QOCS

What order  for costs should the court make in a “mixed” claim when part of the claim is struck out but a personal injury claim continues. That was the question considered in the appeal we are looking at here. In…

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE TO A WITNESS: THE PRINCIPLES SUMMARISED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A “MIXED” CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL
  • “PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SERVE QUITE DIFFERENT PURPOSES”: THE NEED FOR CLAIMANTS TO PLEAD THEIR CASE WHEN APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION
  • MAZUR MATTERS 24: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” (5): THE MEANING OF “COURT” AND WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED BY ACT
  • EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”

Top Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND "WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION"
  • MAZUR MATTERS 24: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" (5): THE MEANING OF "COURT" AND WHAT ACTIVITIES ARE NOT COVERED BY ACT
  • SHOULD COSTS BE DISAPPLIED IN A "MIXED" CASE WHERE PART OF A CLAIM HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT? A DECISION ON APPEAL
  • "PLEADINGS AND EVIDENCE SERVE QUITE DIFFERENT PURPOSES": THE NEED FOR CLAIMANTS TO PLEAD THEIR CASE WHEN APPLYING FOR AN INJUNCTION
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE DUTY TO PUT YOUR CASE TO A WITNESS: THE PRINCIPLES SUMMARISED IN THE HIGH COURT

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.