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 » 16
PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY...)

PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)

April 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

Assessing claims for loss of earnings for children is always difficult.   The importance of this has become, if anything, more acute given the Supreme Court decision in CCC (by her mother and litigation friend MMM) (Appellant) v Sheffield Teaching Hospitals…

"OVERHEATED LANGUAGE" A "CAVALIER APPROACH" AND "THIN ALLEGATIONS": WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS

“OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS

April 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We have seen many cases where the courts have been critical of a party’s failure to comply with the duties of full and frank disclosure when obtaining an order without notice. However here we have a case where the judge…

THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS: WEBINAR 17th APRIL 2026

THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A GUIDE FOR PRACTITIONERS: WEBINAR 17th APRIL 2026

April 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Last week we saw a case where, on a summary assessment, costs were reduced from £2.6 million to £750,000 on a summary assessment. Clearly not all assessments are going to involve these amounts, however the case highlights that these can…

MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

April 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

The  Revised Law Society Guidance on Mazur was looked at in a previous post. Whilst we wait for the SRA Guidance it may be useful to look at the key differences in the Law Society Guidance before and after 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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 103: “THE RESPONSIBILITY OF PLEADING THE CLAIM RESTS ON THE CLAIMANT” (OH, AND MATTERS CANNOT BE ADDED IN A SKELETON ARGUMENT SERVED THE DAY BEFORE TRIAL…)
  • THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT
  • THE CRITICAL IMPORTANCE OF COMPLYING WITH TIME LIMITS: “THERE WAS A WHOLESALE FAILURE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE DEFAULTS”; “IT WAS ALL AS IF COMPLIANCE WERE OPTIONAL”
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE PROBLEMS THAT CAN OCCUR WITH THE CONTENTS OF THE CLAIM FORM: TEN KEY POINTS
  • BOOK REVIEW: CRIMINAL INJURIES COMPENSATION: A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE BY NEIL SUGARMAN

Top Posts

WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE NEWS 6 : CLAIMANT FAILS TO PROVE SOLICITORS WERE NEGLIGENT IN ADVISING UPON SETTLEMENT (IN FACT IT FAILS TO PROVE A LOT OF OTHER MATTERS AS WELL...)
THE COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER THAT THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS CEASE TO ACT FOR HER: THERE IS NO AUTOMATIC CONFLICT AND EVIDENCE IS REQUIRED

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.