REVIEW OF THE YEAR 13: WHAT ARE PEOPLE READING?

December 31, 2025 · by · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Relief from sanctions

It is always interesting to look back and see what are the most popular posts each year.  Sometimes this contains surprises, sometimes it says something about the state (or at least the interests) of the legal profession.    Here are the “Top Ten “for the year,*. You may want to draw your own conclusions as to what is of most interest to readers …

(Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash)

SOME INTERESTING FACTS AND FIGURES

  • The most popular day is Monday (obviously reading CLB is a good way to start the week…).
  • The most popular time is 9.00 am (Also a good way to start the working day…)
  • There have been 818 posts on the blog so far this year.
  • There are 6,780 posts on this blog since it started way back in the mists of time (June 24, 2013 to be accurate).

 

TOP OF THE POPS FOR BLOG READERS IN 2025

  1. WHEN CASES RELIED UPON IN WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WERE SIMPLY “FALSE””: WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS

2. CHANGE IN COURT FEES FROM 8th APRIL 2025: LINK TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION

3. ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE OF FAKE AUTHORITIES BEING CITED TO THE COURT: APPEAL STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

4. FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND “WITHOUT PREJUDICE” CORRESPONDENCE: JUDGE HOLDS THAT CLAIMANT’S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE

5. HAPPY NEW YEAR: THE NEW SOLICITORS’ GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES FOR 2025

6. EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”

7. WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST FIRM OF SOLICITORS FOR FAILING TO INSTRUCT COUNSEL TO ATTEND A HEARING

8. INSURER FAILS IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT HAD EARLIER MADE FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: MANY TROUBLING THINGS HERE

9. AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

10. ANOTHER CASE OF SOMEONE BREACHING THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: THE DRAFT SHOULD NOT BE HANDED OVER THE THE LAWYER’S MARKETING DEPARTMENT

 

* I have taken out two posts (which would have been third and fourth) as these were actually marketing material rather than substantive content.

 THE PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF MAZUR CONSIDERED: HOW NOT TO BREAK THE CRIMINAL LAW BY USING NON-QUALIFIED STAFF… WEBINAR 3rd OCTOBER 2025

 BECOME A MEMBER TO KEEP UP TO DATE: THIS SITE IS BECOMING A MEMBERSHIP SUBSCRIBER SITE – MAKING CLB BIGGER AND BETTER

Tags: , , , , , , ,