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 » 28
MAZUR COMPLIANT SUPERVISION AND COST EFFECTIVE DELEGATION IN 2025: WEBINAR 5th DECEMBER 2025: "TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT"

MAZUR COMPLIANT SUPERVISION AND COST EFFECTIVE DELEGATION IN 2025: WEBINAR 5th DECEMBER 2025: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”

November 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Webinar, Well being

With an appeal pending (at some indefinite time) and the profession still rife with uncertainty we need to consider, head on, issues relating to delegation and supervision.  Get this right and you will be part of a well run and…

EXPERT WATCH 27 : WHAT DOES THE COURT DO WHEN AN EXPERT'S EXAMINATION HAS BEEN COVERTLY RECORDED? "I HOPE HE WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN..."

EXPERT WATCH 27 : WHAT DOES THE COURT DO WHEN AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION HAS BEEN COVERTLY RECORDED? “I HOPE HE WILL NEVER DO IT AGAIN…”

November 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

Covert recordings, of one type or another, are featuring heavily on this blog today.  Here we consider a case where a claimant secretly recorded her examination by an expert instructed by the defendant. The claimant then applied to admit the…

INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED IN CASE WHERE CLAIMANTS OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM DEFENDANTS' SOLICITOR IN A "STING" OPERATION: "THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE"

INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED IN CASE WHERE CLAIMANTS OBTAINED INFORMATION FROM DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR IN A “STING” OPERATION: “THE CLAIMANTS SOUGHT TO JUSTIFY THE UNJUSTIFIABLE”

November 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Disclosure, Members Content

This is a case worth reading if you want to see strong judicial commentary on litigation conduct.  The judge was clear in his view of the conduct that the claimants had engaged in and surprised by its lack of self…

WHEN ONE CLAIMANT FILES A NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: YOU CAN TRY TO CHECK OUT BUT YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY LEAVE

WHEN ONE CLAIMANT FILES A NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: YOU CAN TRY TO CHECK OUT BUT YOU CAN’T NECESSARILY LEAVE

November 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

A claimant can normally file a notice of discontinuance at any time.  However, as this case shows, the position is more complex when there is more than one claimant.  Here we look at a case where someone was surprised 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 82: THE PROFOUND DANGERS OF AN EXPERT USING AI: “A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE VOICE AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE REPORT WHICH SHE HAS FILED”
  • SERVICE POINTS 58: ACCIDENT IN ENGLAND, CLAIMANTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION REFUSED
  • EXPERT WATCH 81: EXPERT EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: COMPANY PERMITTED TO RELY ON IT EXPERT TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS DIRECTORS THOUGHT A REGULATOR’S EMAIL WAS A PHISHING ATTEMPT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN: MISSIVES FROM THE BENCH (OCTOBER 2021): “THAT ONE’S HALF BLIND AND HALF DEAF. I CALL HIM THE COURT OF APPEAL…”
  • THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT PICK AND CHOOSE THE EVIDENCE IT PUTS BEFORE THE COURT: A WITNESS STATEMENT BREACHED THE DUTY OF CANDOUR OWED: WHAT YOU LEAVE OUT CAN SOMETIMES BE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHAT YOU PUT IN…

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD DECISION THAT THE INSURED'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
"THIS IS NOT THE MANNER IN WHICH AN APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE": EMAILS TO THE COURT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF APPLICATIONS
NO FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY WHERE A CLAIMANT GAVE AN ACCOUNT DIFFERENT TO HER LETTER OF CLAIM: (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE)
NON-COMPLIANT CLAIMANTS ARE IN THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (AND THERE ARE 5,000 OF THEM): BUT PARTICULARS MUST BE SERVED AND ADVERSE COSTS STILL PAID
SERVICE POINTS 57: PRESENCE IN THE JURISDICTION, A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG: UNSUCCESFUL CLAIMANT FACES A COSTS BILL OF £500,000...

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.