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 » 07
THE RELEVANCE OF THE ABSENCE OF ORAL EVIDENCE AT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS: A JUDGE MUST MAKE A DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM

THE RELEVANCE OF THE ABSENCE OF ORAL EVIDENCE AT INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATIONS: A JUDGE MUST MAKE A DECISION ON THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM

January 7, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In this case the claimant appealed against the findings of fact that the court made at first instance. However those findings were made on the basis of written evidence that was before the court.  The claimant had not applied for…

COST BITES 324: COURT REFUSES TO REDUCE SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT'S COSTS BECAUSE OF REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION

COST BITES 324: COURT REFUSES TO REDUCE SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS BECAUSE OF REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION

January 7, 2026 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

A party liable to pay the costs of a successful opponent is always keen to reduce that liability, not least by arguing that they should have a reduction in costs because of their opponent’s conduct. We see such an argument…

COST BITES 323: HOURLY RATES: THIS CASE DOES NOT FALL INTO LONDON BAND 1: IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT JUSTIFY FEES ABOVE THAT RATE...

COST BITES 323: HOURLY RATES: THIS CASE DOES NOT FALL INTO LONDON BAND 1: IT CERTAINLY DOES NOT JUSTIFY FEES ABOVE THAT RATE…

January 7, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

We are returning to the issue of hourly rates.  In this case the receiving party sought hourly rates that were above the London 1 band.   The judge held that the case did not fall within that band and certainly did…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: FINDINGS OF DISHONESTY WERE WRONG AND COULD NOT STAND: ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF "INTUITION"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: FINDINGS OF DISHONESTY WERE WRONG AND COULD NOT STAND: ISSUES OF WITNESS CREDIBILITY ARE NOT SIMPLY A MATTER OF “INTUITION”

January 7, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we look at a case where, unusually, the judge overturned first instance findings of dishonesty.    The circumstances in which those findings were made were seriously flawed.  Important procedural safeguards had not been in place,  not least the allegations…

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

  • COST BITES 427: WHEN A SOLICITOR ABANDONS AN ASSESSMENT: PERSONAL LIABILITY AND INDEMNITY COSTS FOLLOW
  • COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO CHANGE NAME OF THE CLAIMANT AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE DANGERS OF LEAVING THINGS LATE
  • THIS CASE SHOULD BE HEARD IN MANCHESTER: ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CASE TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM LONDON
  • A QUICK REMINDER OF THE CLB WEBINARS NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”: ALSO (AND UNRELATED) SAYING AU REVOIR TO THE LITTLE WHITE DOG
  • SERVICE POINTS 52: $28 MILLION CLAIM LOST BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM PROPERLY (THESE CAN BE EXPENSIVE MISTAKES…)

Top Posts

COST BITES 426: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK SHOULD PAY COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUING: "THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK IS DESIGNED TO BE DIFFERENT"
THIS CASE SHOULD BE HEARD IN MANCHESTER: ANOTHER ADMINISTRATIVE COURT CASE TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM LONDON
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT: AN INTERESTING PRACTICE DIRECTION FROM THE HIGH COURT IN IRELAND : GOOD ADVICE FOR US ALL
COST BITES 424: A CLAIM FOR 30.5 HOURS IN ONE DAY: A SCHEDULE "SO UNRELIABLE IT CANNOT FORM THE BASIS FOR ASSESSMENT"
ATTEMPTING TO RE-WRITE A DRAFT JUDGMENT: THIS HARDLY EVER (IF EVER) PERSUADES A JUDGE THAT THEY WERE WRONG

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.