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 » May » 21
WOULD BE APPELLANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SEVEN DAY DEADLINE: ARGUMENTS ABOUT "PUBLIC INTEREST" FAILS TO TAKE OFF: THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING TIME LIMITS...

WOULD BE APPELLANT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH SEVEN DAY DEADLINE: ARGUMENTS ABOUT “PUBLIC INTEREST” FAILS TO TAKE OFF: THE IMPORTANCE OF KNOWING TIME LIMITS…

May 21, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here we have a case where the “would be” appellant failed to obtain permission to appeal out of time.  They failed to notice that the time limits for appealing this specific type of decision had been changed two months prior…

MAZUR MATTERS 62: THE REVISED COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: SOME SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS

MAZUR MATTERS 62: THE REVISED COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: SOME SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS

May 21, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is a revised version of the Court of Appeal judgment in Mazur.  Some paragraphs were amended slightly (but significantly). These amendments do not appeal to have made their way to the version of the judgment that is publicly available….

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 76: APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE DAY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING, WITH NO NOTICE GIVEN: HAVE A GUESS HOW THIS WENT...

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 76: APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE DAY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING, WITH NO NOTICE GIVEN: HAVE A GUESS HOW THIS WENT…

May 21, 2026 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Members Content, Statements of Case

There have been quite a few cases about pleading recently.  This case is interesting because it makes the point that after  a default judgment is entered a claimant is only entitled to have damages assessed on the basis of their…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 75:  A CLAIMANT DOES NOT ALWAYS NEED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR INTEREST: AN INTERESTING POINT... BUT BE VERY WARY...

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 75: A CLAIMANT DOES NOT ALWAYS NEED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR INTEREST: AN INTERESTING POINT… BUT BE VERY WARY…

May 21, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Interest, Members Content, Statements of Case

Here we look at an argument that a claimant was not entitled to interest because it was not pleaded. The judge rejected the argument on two grounds. Firstly that CPR 16 does not apply to Part 8 claims; secondly that…

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.