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 » 06
COST BITES 322: WHAT IS THE POSITION OF AN INSURER IN RELATION TO VAT  WHEN THE INSURED IS INSOLVENT: DOES A PAYING PARTY NOW HAVE TO PAY VAT?

COST BITES 322: WHAT IS THE POSITION OF AN INSURER IN RELATION TO VAT WHEN THE INSURED IS INSOLVENT: DOES A PAYING PARTY NOW HAVE TO PAY VAT?

January 6, 2026 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

This is an interesting “cost bite” issue.  What is the position on VAT when an insurer is being sued under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 2010 but the insured has gone into voluntary liquidation? Is a paying party…

EXPERT WATCH 30 : WHEN THE EXPERTS REPORT ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS:  IT WAS APPARENT THAT SOMETHING HADE WRONG WITH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE

EXPERT WATCH 30 : WHEN THE EXPERTS REPORT ON THE BASIS OF DIFFERENT INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTS: IT WAS APPARENT THAT SOMETHING HADE WRONG WITH THE PROCESS OF OBTAINING EXPERT OPINION EVIDENCE

January 6, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we have problems with the way in which handwriting experts were instructed.   The difficulty being that different experts were given different documents. This led to difficulties at trial. However, ultimately, it did not favour the defendants.  The judge was…

EXPERT WATCH 29: THE JUDGE IS WARY OF A CLINICAL EXPERT WHO IS "HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF LITIGATION"

EXPERT WATCH 29: THE JUDGE IS WARY OF A CLINICAL EXPERT WHO IS “HEAVILY INVOLVED IN THE BUSINESS OF LITIGATION”

January 6, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There have been a number of cases in recent years where judges have been wary (sometimes highly sceptical) of expert witnesses who make their living solely from being involved in litigation. We have another example here.  There is no indication…

PROVING THINGS 275: IF YOU CAN'T PROVE YOU SUFFERED A LOSS THEN YOU HAVE NO CLAIM: ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS DISMISSED: THE PARABLE OF THE MOUNTAINEER'S KNEE

PROVING THINGS 275: IF YOU CAN’T PROVE YOU SUFFERED A LOSS THEN YOU HAVE NO CLAIM: ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS DISMISSED: THE PARABLE OF THE MOUNTAINEER’S KNEE

January 6, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content

Here we have an interesting case about the alleged professional negligence of solicitors.  The case did not get very far, being struck out at first instance and with that decision upheld by the Court of  Appeal. Put simply the claimants…

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
  • 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...)
  • 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..."

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.