Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » 2025 » Page 4
THE COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: ACTION AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT DISMISSED

THE COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: ACTION AGAINST THAT DEFENDANT DISMISSED

February 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Extensions of time, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

One of the issues considered by Mrs Justice Bacon in Vauxhall Motors Ltd & Ors v Denso Automotive UK Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 213 (Ch) was whether an order extending time for service of the claim form should be…

AVOIDING PROCEDURAL ERRORS IN CIVIL LITIGATION (AND WHAT TO DO IF THINGS GO AWRY) : WEBINAR 17th FEBRUARY 2025

AVOIDING PROCEDURAL ERRORS IN CIVIL LITIGATION (AND WHAT TO DO IF THINGS GO AWRY) : WEBINAR 17th FEBRUARY 2025

February 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Relief from sanctions, Webinar, Witness statements

This webinar looks at common mistakes in personal injury litigation and recent cases where things have gone wrong. It then looks at how mistakes can be rectified and how to make an application for relief from sanctions.  Booking details are…

COST BITES 217: CLAIMANTS TO PAY THE DEFENDANTS' COSTS OF THE BUDGETING HEARING: THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS "ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LINE"

COST BITES 217: CLAIMANTS TO PAY THE DEFENDANTS’ COSTS OF THE BUDGETING HEARING: THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS “ON THE WRONG SIDE OF THE LINE”

February 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Conduct, Costs budgeting

We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Constable in GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC), looked in the previous post.  Because of the nature of the budget that the…

COST BITES 216: THIS IS A CASE OF HIGH VALUE: HOWEVER THE CLAIMANTS' COSTS ARE DISPROPORTIONAL AND THE HOURLY RATES ARE EXCESSIVE

COST BITES 216: THIS IS A CASE OF HIGH VALUE: HOWEVER THE CLAIMANTS’ COSTS ARE DISPROPORTIONAL AND THE HOURLY RATES ARE EXCESSIVE

February 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting

This is the first of two posts looking at the  costs budgeting judgment of Mr Justice Constable in GS Woodland Court GP 1 Ltd & Anor v RGCM Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 285 (TCC).   The judge made observations in…

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE TIME ESTIMATES: THE COURT COULD APPLY SANCTIONS "POUR ENCOURAGER LES AUTRES"

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADEQUATE TIME ESTIMATES: THE COURT COULD APPLY SANCTIONS “POUR ENCOURAGER LES AUTRES”

February 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure

We are considering the issue of adequate time estimates for the second time this year. We are also revisiting the judgment of Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC in  Christodoulides v CP Christou LLP [2025] EWHC 214 (SCCO), however this time on…

EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

EXPERTS AT TRIAL: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EXPERT WITH DIRECT PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE OF THE ISSUE BEING CONSIDERED

February 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

In Dobson v Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police [2025] EWHC 272 (KB) HHJ Bird (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered which expert should be accepted in the context of a case against the police.  He preferred the expert with…

COST BITES 215: NON-COMPLIANT POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT - BUT THE COMPLIANT PARTS REMAIN.

COST BITES 215: NON-COMPLIANT POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT – BUT THE COMPLIANT PARTS REMAIN.

February 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Striking out

In Christodoulides v CP Christou LLP [2025] EWHC 214 (SCCO) Deputy Costs Judge Roy KC considered the appropriate approach were part of the Points of Dispute to a bill of costs were non-compliant. He held that the appropriate course of…

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 14th FEBRUARY 2025

February 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

Expert evidence plays a critical, often decisive, role in clinical negligence litigation. An ability to assess expert evidence is a key part of the litigator’s role.  This webinar looks at the rules and cases that govern the credibility of expert…

THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO STRIKE OUT AN ORDER FOR AN ACCOUNT: AN APPLICATION THAT WAS "ILL JUDGED" AND "PUT FORWARD UNDER A JURISDICTION WHICH THE COURT PLAINLY DOES NOT HAVE"

THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE POWER TO STRIKE OUT AN ORDER FOR AN ACCOUNT: AN APPLICATION THAT WAS “ILL JUDGED” AND “PUT FORWARD UNDER A JURISDICTION WHICH THE COURT PLAINLY DOES NOT HAVE”

February 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Striking out

In  Hubbard & Anor v Hubbard & Anor [2024] EWHC 3123 (Ch) Master Marsh (sitting in retirement) rejected a defendant’s application to strike out a claim for an account and for summary judgment for the defendant.  The court had no…

COST BITES 214: SHOULD THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST A CLAIMANT WHEN THE COSTS BUDGET HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

COST BITES 214: SHOULD THE COURT MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS AGAINST A CLAIMANT WHEN THE COSTS BUDGET HAS BEEN GREATLY REDUCED? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED

February 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting

In Zavorotnii v Malinowski [2025] EWHC 260 (KB) HHJ Karen Walden-Smith considered the arguments as to whether a major reduction in a party’s costs budget should lead to an order for costs being made, rather than an order for costs…

THIS CASE IS STAYING IN LONDON: (IT TOOK FROM 2ND JULY  2024 TO 14TH JANUARY 2025 FOR SUBMISSIONS TO BE PLACED BEFORE A JUDGE)

THIS CASE IS STAYING IN LONDON: (IT TOOK FROM 2ND JULY 2024 TO 14TH JANUARY 2025 FOR SUBMISSIONS TO BE PLACED BEFORE A JUDGE)

February 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil Procedure

Since I wrote about a decision transferring Administrative Court proceedings to Leeds it is appropriate that we look at a decision today ordering that the proceedings stay in London despite it having closer ties to Manchester.  In Weis, R (On…

AN UNUSUAL SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM CASE: COURT GRANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CORONER

AN UNUSUAL SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM CASE: COURT GRANTS AN EXTENSION OF TIME IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CORONER

February 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Sanctions, Service of the claim form

In Whittle v HM Coroner for North West Wales [2025] EWHC 236 (Admin) the Administrative Court dealt with an issue relating to failure to serve the claim form in time.  The Court found a solution.  However the judgment is important…

THIS ACTION IS GOING TO YORKSHIRE: CHOICE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE CHOICE OF VENUE

THIS ACTION IS GOING TO YORKSHIRE: CHOICE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE CHOICE OF VENUE

February 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure

In SK Enterprises (UK) Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (Re Determination as to Venue) [2025] EWHC 237 (Admin) Mrs Justice Hill held that an action in the Administrative Court should be…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY AND "WITHOUT PREJUDICE" CORRESPONDENCE: JUDGE HOLDS THAT CLAIMANT'S OFFER OF SETTLEMENT WAS ADMISSIBLE

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

February 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

In  Morris v Williams [2025] EWHC 218 (KB) District Judge Dodsworth considered the question of whether a letter from the claimant’s former solicitor, which contained proposals by the claimant to settle allegations of fundamental dishonesty, could be adduced as evidence. …

DENTON DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: HOWEVER - CONSIDERING THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE - THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED

DENTON DID NOT APPLY TO THE DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME: HOWEVER – CONSIDERING THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE – THE APPLICATION WAS REFUSED

February 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

In Bailey & Ors v GlaxoSmithKline UK Ltd [2025] EWHC 186 (KB) Mr Justice Bourne considered whether the defendant should have an extension of time.  The judge considered whether the “Denton” principles apply to the defendant’s application and if not…

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE - BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

February 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

I am grateful to Professor Keith Rix for allowing me to use an article that appears in February’s Expert Healthcare Witness Matters*.  This deals with the question of whether an expert can, or should, agree to act on a conditional…

COSTS BITES 214: LAWYERS DO YOU WANT TO WORK FOR NOTHING? THE DEFENDANTS' DAMAGE BASED AGREEMENTS WERE NOT VALID AND COSTS WERE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER A COSTS ORDER: WHY SOLICITORS NEED TO THINK ABOUT THEIR RETAINERS CAREFULLY

COSTS BITES 214: LAWYERS DO YOU WANT TO WORK FOR NOTHING? THE DEFENDANTS’ DAMAGE BASED AGREEMENTS WERE NOT VALID AND COSTS WERE NOT RECOVERABLE UNDER A COSTS ORDER: WHY SOLICITORS NEED TO THINK ABOUT THEIR RETAINERS CAREFULLY

February 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Costs

If ever there was a case that highlighted the need for solicitors to consider the terms of the retainer with care, and know the law relating to Damages Based Agreements in detail, it is the judgment of Costs Judge Brown…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE CORRECT ADDRESS ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE "LAST KNOWN RESIDENCE" CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE CORRECT ADDRESS ON THE ENVELOPE AND THE “LAST KNOWN RESIDENCE” CONSIDERED BY THE HIGH COURT

February 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Xenfin Fund 1 Trading Ltd v GFG Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 172 (Ch) Joanna Wicks KC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered two issues relating to service of the claim form. Firstly whether a slightly wrong…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XV: REMEMBER JUDGES MAY BE TALKING ABOUT YOU: ADVICE FROM THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XV: REMEMBER JUDGES MAY BE TALKING ABOUT YOU: ADVICE FROM THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO

January 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Written advocacy

Here we look at an interview with San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Curtis Karnow.  The interview was about a book the judge had written “Litigation in Practice“, which is available in the UK.  The original interview by is Ros Todd. As…

WHEN A PARTY CITES, AND RELIES, ON CASE LAW THAT "DOES NOT EXIST" :"A MOST UNHAPPY FEATURE OF THIS CASE"

WHEN A PARTY CITES, AND RELIES, ON CASE LAW THAT “DOES NOT EXIST” :”A MOST UNHAPPY FEATURE OF THIS CASE”

January 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct

There is a very unusual element to the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Olsen & Anor v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42 (KB). The appellants, litigants in person, relied on case law that apparently supported their case. That…

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025

WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL (?) PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 7th FEBRUARY 2025

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

This blog regularly features cases where there have been issues, sometimes major problems, with expert evidence.  This webinar takes a close look at the factors that the courts take into account when considering which expert’s view should be accepted.  It…

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT

WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE GOES WRONG : THE IMPORTANCE OF ACCURATE INFORMATION BEING GIVEN TO THE EXPERT

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts

We have looked at the judgment in Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as  Judge of the High Court) before, in the context of the failure of committal proceedings following an earlier finding…

"THIS CASE ...HAS COME BEFORE THIS COURT IN SUCH A DISORDERED AND CHAOTIC STATE THAT IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROCEED IN A FAIR WAY

“THIS CASE …HAS COME BEFORE THIS COURT IN SUCH A DISORDERED AND CHAOTIC STATE THAT IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE TO PROCEED IN A FAIR WAY

January 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil Procedure

In  T v T & Ors (Disregard for Procedural Rules, Adjournment) [2025] EWFC 14 (B) Recorder Chandler KC set out a large number of matters on which the applicant had failed to comply with the rules.  It is a judgment…

AN INSURER CAN CONTINUE AN APPEAL AFTER THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISSOLVED: JOIN ITSELF INTO THE ACTION

AN INSURER CAN CONTINUE AN APPEAL AFTER THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DISSOLVED: JOIN ITSELF INTO THE ACTION

January 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure

The Court of Appeal decision in Birley & Anor v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44 also dealt with an interesting point of procedure. The appellant company had been dissolved shortly before the appeal was heard.  The Court of…

FAILING TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM IS NOT AN "ABUSE OF PROCESS" SO AS TO LEAD TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

FAILING TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM IS NOT AN “ABUSE OF PROCESS” SO AS TO LEAD TO QOCS BEING DISAPPLIED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

January 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury, QOCS

We are returning to the decision of the Court of Appeal in Court of Appeal in Birley & Anor v Heritage Independent Living Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 44. The Court upheld a finding that the failure to serve the claim form, or…

AN APPLICATION - AND ORDER -  FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT LEAD TO TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM BEING EXTENDED: A POINT TO WATCH

AN APPLICATION – AND ORDER – FOR A STAY OF PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT LEAD TO TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM BEING EXTENDED: A POINT TO WATCH

January 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Service of the claim form

It was possible that we could get to the end of January without a claim form case being reported. It was, however, unlikely.  A failure to serve was one of the many issues considered by the Court of Appeal in…

COST BITES 213: HOW DOES THE COURT APPROACH ASSESSMENT WHEN COSTS ARE DEDUCTED FROM THE CLIENT'S DAMAGES

COST BITES 213: HOW DOES THE COURT APPROACH ASSESSMENT WHEN COSTS ARE DEDUCTED FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES

January 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Personal Injury, Webinar

We are returning, for the final post (for the time being at least) to the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley in  Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO).  The judge considered the question of how the costs should be…

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

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

January 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Conduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, Personal Injury

In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as  Judge of the High Court) dismissed an action for committal against someone who had been found to be fundamentally dishonest at a personal injury…

COST BITES 212: ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEDUCTIONS OF COSTS FROM CLIENT'S DAMAGES: THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 AND THE SRA CODE OF CONDUCT

COST BITES 212: ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEDUCTIONS OF COSTS FROM CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 AND THE SRA CODE OF CONDUCT

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs

We are again returning to the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley in  Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO).  Here we examine the claimant’s (former client’s) arguments in relation to the deduction of costs breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015…

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs

In St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard struck out large parts of a defendant’s Points of Dispute.  The Points of Dispute were inadequately particularised. The judgment contains an…

COST BITES 210: INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: THE CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FINAL BILL: "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" CONSIDERED

COST BITES 210: INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: THE CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FINAL BILL: “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” CONSIDERED

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs

I am grateful to barrister Thomas Mason for drawing my attention to the judgment of  Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in  Topalsson GmbH v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2025] EWHC 118 (SCCO). The judge determined that a series of…

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR'S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY'S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR’S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY’S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

January 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Personal Injury

In  AKS v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2025] EWHC 126 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard recounted an extraordinary set of facts where a solicitor had wrongly deducted sums from their client’s damages.  The judgment shows that this issue…

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW XIV: "RAMBO TACTICS" DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE...)

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIV: “RAMBO TACTICS” DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE…)

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Conduct, Useful links

Continuing with revisiting guidance from judges in relation to advocacy. Here I advocate (hopefully in a civil way) learning from one judgment.  That is the judgment of District Judge Chin in the  extraordinary case of Revson -v- Cinque & Cinque in…

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL: "THE NEED TO PROMOTE THE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IN ALL CASES"

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL: “THE NEED TO PROMOTE THE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IN ALL CASES”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence

In  Omanovic v Shamaazi Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 110 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer granted the defendants’ application that the terms of settlement with two claimants were inadmissible in the trial of the remaining claimant.  On the facts of…

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs

We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here the judge considered (and rejected) that claimant’s [former client’s] argument that the CFA entered into with the solicitor was…

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN "INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION": A REPORT WAS "IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE"

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts

In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence.   The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 4th FEBRUARY 2025: CAN YOU AFFORD TO MISS IT?

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 4th FEBRUARY 2025: CAN YOU AFFORD TO MISS IT?

January 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Service of the claim form, Webinar

Every year this blog covers numerous  cases where claimants (and occasionally defendants)  come to grief in relation to service of the claim form. The frustrating issue in relation to service issues is that most (if not all) of the problems…

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW XIII: GUIDANCE ON SKELETON ARGUMENTS: "PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE JUDGE":  "DIFFICULT TO READ, DISGUSTING TO TOUCH AND IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. IT IS WORSE THAN NO SKELETON AT ALL"

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIII: GUIDANCE ON SKELETON ARGUMENTS: “PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE JUDGE”: “DIFFICULT TO READ, DISGUSTING TO TOUCH AND IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. IT IS WORSE THAN NO SKELETON AT ALL”

January 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Useful links, Written advocacy

This post is another in the series of repeats of the series on advocacy. This blog has many posts that record cases where judges have been critical of the contents (and usually length) of skeleton arguments.  A remedy for most…

COST BITES 208: A CLIENT'S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR'S COSTS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION

COST BITES 208: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS IN PERSONAL INJURY ACTION

January 21, 2025 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs

There is a strange area of litigation and legal costs where issues of proportionality and common sense appear to totally disappear.  – that is former client’s challenges to solicitor’s deductions from damages.  We see another example in  Perrett v Wolferstans…

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

January 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

In  JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley considered the – much debated and litigated – issue of whether there needs to be  breakdown of an expert’s fee when the expert is instructed through an agency.  The…

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVOCATES WORKING WITHIN TIME ESTIMATES: COURT OF APPEAL POLICE THEIR PROCEDURE

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVOCATES WORKING WITHIN TIME ESTIMATES: COURT OF APPEAL POLICE THEIR PROCEDURE

January 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Written advocacy

In Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13 the Court of Appeal considered many significant issues relating to the civil liability of the police force. However this blog, being this blog, will defer consideration of those…

THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: MAXIMISING COSTS RECOVERY ON AN INTER PARTIES RECOVER - THE LITIGATOR'S ROLE: WEBINAR 23rd JANUARY 2025

THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: MAXIMISING COSTS RECOVERY ON AN INTER PARTIES RECOVER – THE LITIGATOR’S ROLE: WEBINAR 23rd JANUARY 2025

January 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Webinar

Detailed assessment usually takes place after attempts at settlement of costs have failed and there are some major differences between the parties.  The webinar uses examples from reported cases to show where failures and omissions by the receiving party has…

COST BITES 206: THE COURT WOULD NOT MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN AN AMENDMENT TO A REPLY ABANDONS AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD: (ALSO THE DANGERS OF PLEADING FRAUD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS)

January 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Costs

In Packer v Packer [2025] EWHC 27 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered issues of costs after a claimant had amended a Reply to withdraw an allegation of fraud.  The judge did not accept the…

CAN  A CLAIMANT WHO HAS ISSUED PART 8 PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT BE COMPELLED TO TRANSFER THE ACTION TO PART 7: THE COURT THINKS NOT

CAN A CLAIMANT WHO HAS ISSUED PART 8 PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT BE COMPELLED TO TRANSFER THE ACTION TO PART 7: THE COURT THINKS NOT

January 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Chris Barnes KC for allowing me to rely on his note of a post he put on LinkedIn yesterday. It relates to the question of whether a court can “convert” Part 8 proceedings issued for the…

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES II: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND: COSTS REDUCED BY 50%

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES II: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND: COSTS REDUCED BY 50%

January 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs

We are continuing this series looking at issues of misconduct in the assessment process by looking at the decision of District Judge Griffith in Kerins -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham, 31st July 2015). The claimant’s costs were reduced by…

COURT GRANTS DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT DUE TO THE ILLNESS OF LEADING COUNSEL

January 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure

In  Manchester Property Development Holdings & Anor v Kuit Steinart Levy LLP [2025] EWHC 35 (Comm) Dame Clare Moulder DBE granted the defendant’s application for an adjournment of an imminent trial because Leading Counsel became unexpectedly ill.   There was insufficient…

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS - A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1:  LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1: LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

January 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Webinar

Recent cases on the issue of costs being reduced, or disallowed, due to the conduct of the assessment proceedings have led me to review the cases on this topic. This is the first in a series of posts about the…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XII: BEING PERSUASIVE - SIMPLE IS BEST: "CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTS ARE SLEEPING PILLS ON PAPER"

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XII: BEING PERSUASIVE – SIMPLE IS BEST: “CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTS ARE SLEEPING PILLS ON PAPER”

January 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Written advocacy

This post revisits the detailed article by Judge Stephen J. Dwyer, Leonard J. Feldman & Ryan P. McBridet called “How to Write, Edit, and Review Persuasive Briefs: Seven Guidelines from One Judge and Two Lawyers”. Remember the purpose of this…

THREE WEBINARS ON COSTS TO START OF THE CALENDAR (IF NOT THE FINANCIAL) YEAR

THREE WEBINARS ON COSTS TO START OF THE CALENDAR (IF NOT THE FINANCIAL) YEAR

January 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Costs, Costs budgeting, Webinar

There are three webinars on costs this January of interest to most litigators. The first deals with the summary assessment of costs; the second the role of the litigator in detailed assessments and the third on the topic of deducting…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XI:  ADVOCACY BEFORE THE MASTERS: YOU ARE DEALING WITH EXPERTS AND TIMING IS IMPORTANT

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XI: ADVOCACY BEFORE THE MASTERS: YOU ARE DEALING WITH EXPERTS AND TIMING IS IMPORTANT

January 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Written advocacy

Today we are revisiting an article by Master David Cook “Advocacy before the QB Masters – Some Do’s and Dont’s” and it reminded me why I wrote the original series. These are invaluable sources of advice and information.  Appearing before Masters…

← Previous 1 … 3 4 5 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2024. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 35.1K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 239: HOW MUCH NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED TO A CLIENT ENTERING INTO A CFA?
  • AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: PROTECTING THE CLIENT AND PROTECTING YOURSELF: WEBINAR 29th MAY 2025
  • THE CITATION OF FALSE AUTHORITIES: THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A DATE IN COURT ON THE 23rd MAY
  • COST BITES 238: WHEN A CLIENT DISPUTES THE SOLICITOR’S COSTS: THE JUDGE’S VIEW ON MEMORY, WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS DRAFTED “WITH THE GUIDING HAND OF THE CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITOR”
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 4: THE EMPLOYER WAS IN BREACH OF DUTY WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED CROSSING THE ROAD

Top Posts & Pages

  • THE CITATION OF FALSE AUTHORITIES: THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES HAVE A DATE IN COURT ON THE 23rd MAY
  • CLAIM WAS (ARGUABLY) ISSUED IN TIME WHEN IT ARRIVED AT THE COURT: LATE SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT DEPRIVE THE COURT OF JURISDICTION
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 4: THE EMPLOYER WAS IN BREACH OF DUTY WHEN EMPLOYEE WAS INJURED CROSSING THE ROAD
  • COST BITES 238: WHEN A CLIENT DISPUTES THE SOLICITOR'S COSTS: THE JUDGE'S VIEW ON MEMORY, WITNESSES AND STATEMENTS DRAFTED "WITH THE GUIDING HAND OF THE CLAIMANTS' SOLICITOR"
  • AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: PROTECTING THE CLIENT AND PROTECTING YOURSELF: WEBINAR 29th MAY 2025

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...