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 » July » 29
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: LARGE PARTS OF THE CLAIMANT'S WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE STRUCK OUT: "INADMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW" "OF MARGINAL RELEVANCE" AND DEAL WITH "WHOLLY COLLATERAL ISSUES"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: LARGE PARTS OF THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE STRUCK OUT: “INADMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW” “OF MARGINAL RELEVANCE” AND DEAL WITH “WHOLLY COLLATERAL ISSUES”

July 29, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we have a case where the court was asked to exclude large parts of a party’s witness statements.  That application was successful in part.  The judge finding that many of the statements, or parts of the statements, were simply…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: LARGE PARTS OF THE CLAIMANT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS ARE STRUCK OUT: “INADMISSIBLE AS A MATTER OF LAW” “OF MARGINAL RELEVANCE” AND DEAL WITH “WHOLLY COLLATERAL ISSUES”
  • MAZUR MATTERS 66: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD FINAL REPORT ON MAZUR: “REGULATORY REVIEW OF ADVICE AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE PROFESSION ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGAITON BY APPROVED REGULATORS AND REGULATORY BODIES”
  • COST BITES 419: HOW CLAIMING COUNSEL’S FEES ON AN N260 CAN LEAD TO REFERRAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED: SIGNATORY BEWARE
  • SEEKING A STAY PENDING AN APPEAL: “GENERALISED ASSERTIONS ARE NO SUBSTITUTE FOR EVIDENCE”: COURT REFUSES APPLICATION
  • SERVICE POINTS 50: IS SERVICE OF A TENANT AND AN ADDRESS STATED IN THE LEASE GOOD SERVICE WHEN THE TENANT IS NOT THERE? DOES THE CONTRACT OVERRIDE THE CPR?

Top Posts

COST BITES 419: HOW CLAIMING COUNSEL'S FEES ON AN N260 CAN LEAD TO REFERRAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED: SIGNATORY BEWARE
THE RULES ARE CHANGING: ADVANCE NOTICE: GOODBYE TO THE CHANCERY DIVISION
A BOOK ABOUT SERVICE (AT LONG LAST): WHAT IS MORE IT IS IMPRESSIVE, COMPREHENSIVE AND FILLS A GAP IN THE MARKET (AND, THIS BLOG'S PART IN ITS CREATION)
LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT...) AND THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS "WHAT IS A TRIAL?": THE DEFINITION PROVES TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS APPELLANT...
EXPERT WATCH 61: THE EXPERT WAS TELLING ME WHAT THEY WOULD HAVE DONE RATHER THAN APPLYING THE BOLAM STANDARD: CLAIMANT'S CASE FAILS AT TRIAL

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.