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 » December » Page 2
MAZUR MATTERS 42: CAN ANY GOOD COME OF ALL THIS?  POSITIVE THINKING ABOUT DELEGATION AND THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: SOME USEFUL LINKS

MAZUR MATTERS 42: CAN ANY GOOD COME OF ALL THIS? POSITIVE THINKING ABOUT DELEGATION AND THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION: SOME USEFUL LINKS

December 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Well being

The current situation is that large parts of the profession are waiting, with bated breath, for a Court of Appeal judgment as to whether the Mazur decision was right, in particular in relation to non-authorised employees having the “conduct” of litigation. …

SERVICE POINTS 25:  DOES AN  EARLIER ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE BY EMAIL INCLUDE SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION TO COMMIT: SHOULD THE COURT  RETROSPECTIVELY AUTHORISED SERVICE?.

SERVICE POINTS 25: DOES AN EARLIER ORDER FOR SUBSTITUTED SERVICE BY EMAIL INCLUDE SERVICE OF AN APPLICATION TO COMMIT: SHOULD THE COURT RETROSPECTIVELY AUTHORISED SERVICE?.

December 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Members Content, Serving documents

Here we consider an argument as to whether an application to commit for contempt was validly served. The respondent argued that the application needed to be served in person. The applicant’s argument was that there was in place an order…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 5: ANOTHER CASE OF "WHAT WAS SAID?" AND "WHY WASN'T THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN THE MEDICAL NOTES?"

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 5: ANOTHER CASE OF “WHAT WAS SAID?” AND “WHY WASN’T THAT PARTICULAR POINT IN THE MEDICAL NOTES?”

December 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Disclosure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we have a clinical negligence case with a familiar issue. The trial depended on whose account the judge accepted of what was said in a particular medical consultation several years earlier.  The treating doctor can, in reality, remember little…

WHEN AN APPLICATION IS OVER - CAN A PARTY MAKE FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

WHEN AN APPLICATION IS OVER – CAN A PARTY MAKE FURTHER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

December 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

We have seen many cases on this blog where litigants have attempted to use draft judgments to “reopen” the judge’s conclusions. Here we have a warning about attempts to make further written submissions after the hearing has been concluded. (Once…

← Previous 1 2

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

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)

Top Posts

  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: "THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES..."
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE "A GREAT MYSTERY" TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS...)

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.