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 » 27
CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO APPEAL: "WHILST A DECISION MAY BE FINAL, THAT FINAL DECISION MUST BE FAIR"

CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A REFUSAL OF PERMISSION TO APPEAL: “WHILST A DECISION MAY BE FINAL, THAT FINAL DECISION MUST BE FAIR”

November 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

A post earlier this week highlighted the fact that that it is not possible to appeal a decision of a Circuit Judge refusing permission to appeal. The only option for a litigant in these circumstances is to apply for judicial…

PROVING THINGS 274: A WITNESS STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIVE TO AND COMMENT UPON THE OTHER SIDE'S STATEMENTS: FAILURE TO COMPLY HAS CONSEQUENCES

PROVING THINGS 274: A WITNESS STATEMENT SHOULD NOT BE RESPONSIVE TO AND COMMENT UPON THE OTHER SIDE’S STATEMENTS: FAILURE TO COMPLY HAS CONSEQUENCES

November 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

It is surprisingly common to see witness statements that “comment” on aspects of the case rather than give evidence.  This clearly breaches the rules relating to witness statements. Further it can lead to adverse consequences for those who make such…

WHAT IS THE COURT TO DO WHEN A PARTY ALLEGES THAT A DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY BUT HAS NOT SERVED NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19?

WHAT IS THE COURT TO DO WHEN A PARTY ALLEGES THAT A DOCUMENT IS A FORGERY BUT HAS NOT SERVED NOTICE UNDER CPR 32.19?

November 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here we look at very useful observations as to the approach of the court when at trial it becomes clear that a party is alleging a document is forged, or not authentic, but that party has not served a notice…

EXPERT WATCH 26: JUDGE'S DECISION NOT TO ADMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: "IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT VALUE IT WOULD ADD TO THE CASE"

EXPERT WATCH 26: JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ADMIT EXPERT EVIDENCE UPHELD BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: “IT IS NOT CLEAR TO ME WHAT VALUE IT WOULD ADD TO THE CASE”

November 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

It is rare to see an appeal where a decision about whether to admit expert evidence is considered.  In this case the Court of Appeal considered the judge’s decision not to admit a report. Both parties agreed that the report…

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

  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE WHERE A LITIGANT ARGUED “MY CASE WAS SO HOPELESS I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS” (OCTOBER 2024)
  • EXPERT WATCH 58: SHOULD A DEFENDANT HAVE PERMISSION TO RELY UPON A NEW EXPERT WHICH WOULD LEAD TO THE TRIAL DATE BEING VACATED?
  • “I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS A CASE IN WHICH SO LITTLE RESPECT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE COURT”: INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES; OVER-LENGTHY SKELETONS; ENORMOUS BUNDLES (OH AND AN ATTITUDE OF “WE’LL COME INTO COURT WHEN WE WANT TO”…): I CAN’T RECALL JUDICIAL CRITICISM MUCH STRONGER THAN THIS,
  • 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

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
"I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS A CASE IN WHICH SO LITTLE RESPECT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE COURT": INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES; OVER-LENGTHY SKELETONS; ENORMOUS BUNDLES (OH AND AN ATTITUDE OF "WE'LL COME INTO COURT WHEN WE WANT TO"...): I CAN'T RECALL JUDICIAL CRITICISM MUCH STRONGER THAN THIS,
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...)

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.