Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » 2026 » January » 27
BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH "COURT SEALS": "CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC..."

BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH “COURT SEALS”: “CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC…”

January 27, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We have seen a few occasions where someone has produced an “official” court document which turned out to be no such thing.  We see another example here, a “warrant” that, on the face of  it had a red circular seal…

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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH “COURT SEALS”: “CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC…”
  • COST BITES 336: MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS” AND DO NOT JUSTIFY A VARIATION IN THE BUDGET: THE JUDGE NOT PERSUADED ON THE USE OF LEADING COUNSEL, NEW SOLICITORS WITH HIGHER HOURLY RATES AND THINGS MISSED FROM THE FIRST BUDGET
  • ONE OF THE PERILS OF OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION: AN INTERVENER GIVEN LIBERTY TO APPLY TO BRING A POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AN INJUNCTION: LITIGATORS MUST GIVE CAREFUL ADVICE…
  • SHOULD A LOSING PARTY FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER? A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A HIGH HURDLE WITH A “FORMIDABLE BURDEN”
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL: IF YOU DENY – YOU HAVE TO SAY WHY…

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" AND A DENIAL: IF YOU DENY - YOU HAVE TO SAY WHY...
  • PART 36: DOES A JUDICIAL READING DAY COUNT IN THE CALCULATION OF "21 DAYS" ? WHAT A DIFFERENCE A (READING) DAY MAKES...
  • SHOULD A LOSING PARTY FACE THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER? A REMINDER THAT THIS IS A HIGH HURDLE WITH A "FORMIDABLE BURDEN"
  • COST BITES 336: MOST OF THESE THINGS ARE NOT "SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS" AND DO NOT JUSTIFY A VARIATION IN THE BUDGET: THE JUDGE NOT PERSUADED ON THE USE OF LEADING COUNSEL, NEW SOLICITORS WITH HIGHER HOURLY RATES AND THINGS MISSED FROM THE FIRST BUDGET
  • ONE OF THE PERILS OF OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION: AN INTERVENER GIVEN LIBERTY TO APPLY TO BRING A POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AN INJUNCTION: LITIGATORS MUST GIVE CAREFUL ADVICE...

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, 2013-2025. 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.