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 » November » 26
COST BITES 313: A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT IS NOT GOING TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR COSTS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO BEAT THEIR OWN OFFERS...

COST BITES 313: A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT IS NOT GOING TO BE DEPRIVED OF THEIR COSTS BECAUSE THEY FAILED TO BEAT THEIR OWN OFFERS…

November 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

This is a case with some interesting arguments as to costs. The court considered allegations of a failure to engage in ADR; the fact that the claimants had not beaten their own offers and issues in relation to conduct, proportionality…

COST BITES 312: A CHANCE TO SEE COSTS BUDGETING IN ACTION: A CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED AND THE CLAIMANT IS A PROTECTED PARTY

COST BITES 312: A CHANCE TO SEE COSTS BUDGETING IN ACTION: A CASE WHERE FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED AND THE CLAIMANT IS A PROTECTED PARTY

November 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

It is always interesting to read  detailed decisions about costs budgeting.  They are few and far between. We have a full judgment here where the Master deals with issues such as hourly rates, the impact of allegations of dishonesty and…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A JUDGE ASKING A WITNESS TO CLARIFY THEIR EVIDENCE IS NOT "BIASED" : "JUDGES ARE NOT PASSIVE SPECTATORS AT A TRIAL"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A JUDGE ASKING A WITNESS TO CLARIFY THEIR EVIDENCE IS NOT “BIASED” : “JUDGES ARE NOT PASSIVE SPECTATORS AT A TRIAL”

November 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

This week we are looking at an appeal that considers the trial judge’s consideration of witnesses at trial.  The appellant alleged that the judge was biased and the trial therefore unfair.  There is a detailed consideration of the “bias” alleged…

MAZUR MATTERS 41: CILEX GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL THE MAZUR JUDGMENT: BUT WHEN WILL IT BE HEARD?

MAZUR MATTERS 41: CILEX GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL THE MAZUR JUDGMENT: BUT WHEN WILL IT BE HEARD?

November 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

CILEX have been granted permission to appeal the Mazur judgment.  The primary question for the profession now is (i) when will the appeal be heard; (ii) what do we do in the meantime? Mazur remaining good law. (I wish CILEX…

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

  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…
  • COST BITES 413: GET YOUR FUNDING IN PLACE AND TELL EVERYONE IF THE MUSIC HAS STOPPED: CAT AWARDS COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS DUE TO CONDUCT

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES - BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE "HOSTILE"
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?

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.