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 » February » 24
COST BITES 359: FAILING TO SIGN CONSENT ORDER LEADS TO £44,000 IN COSTS: "GOING SILENT" IS NOT A CHEAP OPTION...

COST BITES 359: FAILING TO SIGN CONSENT ORDER LEADS TO £44,000 IN COSTS: “GOING SILENT” IS NOT A CHEAP OPTION…

February 24, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Just a quick warning  here about the costs of not signing a consent order having agreed to so something.  It can be expensive. We have a case here where it cost £44,000 when the claimant made an application because the…

COST BITES 358: JUDGE DOES NOT  AWARD COSTS ON AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT (INITIALLY) ASKED FOR TOO MUCH

COST BITES 358: JUDGE DOES NOT AWARD COSTS ON AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL BECAUSE THE RESPONDENT (INITIALLY) ASKED FOR TOO MUCH

February 24, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

It is not unusual for a party, on an interlocutory application, to put in a schedule of costs that covers the entire action. Sometimes this is justified, often it is not.  Here we have a case where this backfired.  The initial…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 57: A CASE ALLEGING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLEADED

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 57: A CASE ALLEGING PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS NOT ADEQUATELY PLEADED

February 24, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are looking at the same case as in the earlier post, but from a different angle.  The case has some particular pleading points. The claimant pleaded that the solicitor was negligent in not instructing counsel, but did not plead that…

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE NEWS: A SOLICITOR WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN ADVISING THE CLAIMANT TO SETTLE: NEITHER COUNSEL'S ADVICE NOR AN EXPERT REPORT WERE NECESSARY

PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE NEWS: A SOLICITOR WAS NOT NEGLIGENT IN ADVISING THE CLAIMANT TO SETTLE: NEITHER COUNSEL’S ADVICE NOR AN EXPERT REPORT WERE NECESSARY

February 24, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Professional negligence,

Fortunately for the courts and legal system most civil cases settle.  Advising on settlement terms carries some risks, and requires a high level of judgment.   Some clients will be dissatisfied with the settlement reached and blame the lawyers involved for…

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
  • SERVICE POINTS 56 : PERSONAL SERVICE NOT EFFECTED: COURT RETROSPECTIVELY APPROVES ALTERNATIVE SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS IN CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS
  • DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT – AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE’S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: A CASE WHERE THE SOLICITORS’ EVIDENCE (OF THEIR OWN) LOSS WAS “WHOLLY INADEQUATE” (OCTOBER 2017)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
SERVICE POINTS 55: THE SOLICITORS DISCIPLINARY TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT A SOLICITOR WAS TELLING LIES ABOUT SERVICE: SOLICITOR STRUCK OFF (DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN TO YOU...)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS, CHANGE OF SOLICITORS AND RATIFICATION AND INFORMED ADVICE: IT IS NOT SO EASY TO SIMPLY RECOMMEND A CHANGE OF SOLICITORS...
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT

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.