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 » April » 02
ANOTHER CASE ON FAILING TO PAY THE COURT FEE: AN APPEAL WAS STILL LODGED IN TIME EVEN THOUGH NO FEE WAS PAID AT ALL

ANOTHER CASE ON FAILING TO PAY THE COURT FEE: AN APPEAL WAS STILL LODGED IN TIME EVEN THOUGH NO FEE WAS PAID AT ALL

April 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Court fees, Members Content

Here we have a case that extends the principles in Siniakovich v Hassan-Soudey. The Court of Appeal held that a statutory appeal was lodged within time, even though it was sent by email to the court and no fee was…

SERVICE POINTS 32: MISSING OUT THE NAME OF THE ROAD ON THE CLAIM FORM  DID NOT INVALIDATE SERVICE

SERVICE POINTS 32: MISSING OUT THE NAME OF THE ROAD ON THE CLAIM FORM DID NOT INVALIDATE SERVICE

April 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The judge here considered an argument that a failure to include the name of the defendant’s street on the claim form meant that service was defective.  This argument was rejected.  The fact that the street was mentioned on the land…

MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: (THIS IS NOT "AS YOU WERE"):  WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026

MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTITIONERS: (THIS IS NOT “AS YOU WERE”): WEBINAR 9th APRIL 2026

April 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Webinar

I have already written about the misunderstandings that have occurred in relation to the Mazur judgment.  The judgment is far more nuanced than some commentators suggest and a detailed knowledge of what is required is essential for anyone involved in…

COST BITES 369: SOMETIMES LITIGATION IS MORE ART THAN SCIENCE: "BANKSY" ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER ACTION DISCONTINUED, BUT NOT A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER

COST BITES 369: SOMETIMES LITIGATION IS MORE ART THAN SCIENCE: “BANKSY” ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS AFTER ACTION DISCONTINUED, BUT NOT A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER

April 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Here we have a case where the claimant discontinued. Discontinuance made the claimant liable to pay costs.  However in this case it was ordered to pay costs on the indemnity basis (from a key date).   The judge then considered the…

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

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT WITNESS SUMMARIES
  • EXPERT WATCH 80: WHEN EXPERTS ARE ON THE METER: ONE EXPERT WAS NOT ALWAYS INDEPENDENT, THE OTHER DID NOT APPRECIATE HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
  • PERMISSION TO RELY ON A WITNESS SUMMARY: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO SHOW THE WITNESS HAS REFUSED TO GIVE A STATEMENT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OH, AND THAT WITNESS FORMERLY KNOWN AS “PRINCE”)
  • 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)

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)
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"
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
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
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 101: PUTTING A FIGURE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT SUM

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.