Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2026 » January » 05
COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES PERMISSION FOR APPELLANT TO AMEND PLEADINGS OR RELY ON NEW EVIDENCE: GET YOUR CASE TOGETHER BEFORE AN APPLICATION NOT AFTER IT...

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES PERMISSION FOR APPELLANT TO AMEND PLEADINGS OR RELY ON NEW EVIDENCE: GET YOUR CASE TOGETHER BEFORE AN APPLICATION NOT AFTER IT…

January 5, 2026 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment, Witness statements

In this judgment today the Court of Appeal refused an application by an appellant to rely on amended Particulars of Claim or adduce new evidence in a case where the claim was struck out. The Court made the point that…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 45:   THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM SHOWED NO ARGUABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND WERE STRUCK OUT

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 45: THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM SHOWED NO ARGUABLE CAUSE OF ACTION AND WERE STRUCK OUT

January 5, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

Here we have an example of a case where the allegations against the proposed (Part 20) defendant were inadequately pleaded. So inadequate that the judge struck out the particulars and refused the applicant’s permission to rely on amended particulars (which…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6 : CAUSATION WHEN THE INJURIES OCCURRED BEFORE THE NEGLIGENCE: THE BREACHES MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE OUTCOME

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 6 : CAUSATION WHEN THE INJURIES OCCURRED BEFORE THE NEGLIGENCE: THE BREACHES MADE NO DIFFERENCE TO THE OUTCOME

January 5, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

Practitioners in every field of litigation need to be aware of the need to prove causation in addition to breach.  This requirement can sound particularly harshly in clinical negligence.  We see an example here.  There were some breaches of the…

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: MAKING APPLICATIONS: WORDING AND TIMING

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: MAKING APPLICATIONS: WORDING AND TIMING

January 5, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Last week we looked a case where the parties to a day long application had incurred costs over of £1.3 million.  That case emphasises that applications can be expensive. Further they can sometimes be expensive, leaving the applicant in a…

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

  • MI5: CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTERNAL REPORTS: THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING: A POINT OF GENERAL RELEVANCE NOT JUST SECRET AGENTS…
  • COST BITES 458: “PLEASE JUDGE WE’D LIKE MORE TIME TO PAY THE COSTS”: THE RULES AND CASES CONSIDERED
  • COSTS BITES 457 — A FAILED FRAUD CLAIM, INDEMNITY COSTS AND 14 DAYS TO PAY: “I CONSIDER THAT THIS WAS COMMERCIAL CONDUCT OUT OF THE NORM” (OH, AND YOU DON’T GET MORE TIME TO PAY JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE A LARGE ORGANISATION)
  • COST BITES 456: THE CLAIMANT HAD SUCCEEDED ON ALL FOUGHT POINTS: THERE WOULD BE NO REDUCTION OF ITS COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS IN A LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHY A SOLICITOR TAKES TO TAKE GREAT WHEN MAKING STATEMENTS: “AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS ON WHOSE EVIDENCE I CAN PLACE LITTLE RELIANCE” (IS WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO SEE…)

Top Posts

WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT
EXPERT WATCH 84: THE TRIAL JUDGE'S APPROACH TO THE EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS WRONG: THE APPROACH IN TUI HAD TO BE CONSIDERED: AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR HOUSING LAWYERS...

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.