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 » 25
BACK TO BASICS (BANK HOLIDAY) MONDAY: A REMINDER OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE COURT APPROACHES A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION

BACK TO BASICS (BANK HOLIDAY) MONDAY: A REMINDER OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE COURT APPROACHES A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION

May 25, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It is important to remember the major difference in the court’s approach to a an application for an extension that is made ahead of the date of compliance compared to one that is made afterwards.  The governing principles are very different….

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 (BANK HOLIDAY) MONDAY: A REMINDER OF WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: THE PROFOUND DIFFERENCE IN THE WAY THE COURT APPROACHES A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION
  • COST BITES 390: THE COURT OF APPEAL, “LATE” WITNESS STATEMENTS, THE COPPERS AND THE COSTS
  • AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: WEBINAR 26th MAY 2026: NOW WITH ADDED CHECKLISTS
  • THE COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED DEFENDANT TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED “LATE”: THE CRUCIAL DISTINCTION BETWEEN “IN TIME” AND “OUT OF TIME” APPLICATIONS TO EXTEND TIME
  • YOU CAN’T DELIBERATELY DECIDE TO IGNORE COURT (OR TRIBUNAL) DIRECTIONS: HMRC INVOLVED IN “CONTUMELIOUS” CONDUCT, ITS (LATE) APOLOGY GIVEN LITTLE WEIGHT

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.