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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…
  • COST BITES 413: GET YOUR FUNDING IN PLACE AND TELL EVERYONE IF THE MUSIC HAS STOPPED: CAT AWARDS COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS DUE TO CONDUCT

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES - BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE "HOSTILE"
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?

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.