Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » gexall » Page 132

MORE ON CHILD CLAIMANTS AND THE RECOVERY OF SUCCESS FEES: AN EXTREMELY HELPFUL NOTE FROM THE CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS

September 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Rule Changes

The post yesterday on children and success fees got a lot of attention. I am grateful to Daniel Higgins head of costs at Gavin Edmonson Solicitors Ltd who was involved in that appeal. His note (reproduced with his permission below)…

RULE CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1st OCTOBER 2014

September 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Rule Changes

A reminder that rule changes come into force on the 1st October with links to the relevant rules and useful articles and guidance. AN OUTLINE OF THE CHANGES The following summary  is taken from The Justice guide  The changes are,…

SUCCESS FEES IN CHILDREN CASES: LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER PRACTICE

September 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content

The question of deducting success fees from the damages of a child remains a vexed one. I am grateful to Gillian Shaw from Paul Rooney LLP Solicitors who sent me the following note in relation to the practice in Liverpool…

DRESSING FOR COURT: GUIDANCE AND LINKS FOR LAWYERS, LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES

DRESSING FOR COURT: GUIDANCE AND LINKS FOR LAWYERS, LITIGANTS AND WITNESSES

September 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Members Content, Useful links

There has been a lot of debate recently about appropriate dress for court. I am not going to discuss the reports that gave rise to that. However at least that should lead to a consideration of appropriate dress for court….

COSTS CAPPING IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DON'T BANK ON THE TIDE BEING IN YOUR FAVOUR

September 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Tidal Energy -v- Bank of Scotland Plc Arden L.J. considered, and rejected, an application for costs capping in relation to a forthcoming Court of Appeal hearing. The Court was keen to discourage satellite litigation in the Court of Appeal….

THE WITNESSES SAY THE OTHER SIDE IS LYING: WHAT DOES THE JUDGE DO? A GORGEOUS BEAUTY CONSIDERED!

September 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

We have looked before at issues of witness credibility, particularly in relation to the drafting of witness statements. This was an issue considered by Arnold J in Gorgeous Beauty Ltd -v- Liu (and others) [2014] EWHC 2952 (Ch). It provides…

THE JUDGE, THE EXPERT, CAUSATION AND DAMAGES: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE DEFENDANT HAS MADE A BAD SITUATION WORSE

September 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content

The decision of Foskett J in Reaney -v- University Hospital of North Staffordshire NHS Trust [2014] EWHC 2016 (QB) contains important observations on the role of the judge and the expert in assessing damages for care. It also contains a…

THINKING OF ISSUING WITHOUT A LETTER BEFORE ACTION? THINK AGAIN IT MAY BE BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH(CARE)

September 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In Baxter Healthcare UK Ltd -v- Fresenius Kabi* (17/09/14) Judge Hacon set out the dangers of issuing proceedings without sending a letter before action. THE ISSUES The claimant issued proceedings without sending a letter before action. The dispute was resolved….

ADDUCING A SECOND EXPERT WITNESS LATE IN THE DAY: THWAYTES -v- SOTHEBYS CONSIDERED

September 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

There is a brief report on Lawtel today of a decision of Rose J in Thwaytes -v- Sothebys (16/09/2014) where permission was given for the defendant to rely on an additional expert and the application was heard six weeks before…

INDEMNITY COSTS, COSTS BUDGETING AND WITNESS STATEMENTS:INTERVIEW ON KELLIE -v- LLOYD

September 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links, Witness statements

There is a feature on the Lexis Nexis Dispute Resolution Blog where I answer questions about the implications of the judgment in Kellie and another v Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd [2014] EWHC 2886 (TCC), [2014] All ER (D) 152 (Aug)…

COSTS IN THE SUPREME COURT: NEGLIGENT SOLICITORS ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF BOTH SIDES

September 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

What costs order should the Supreme Court make when an appellant succeeds in establishing that wills are valid despite the fact that they have been improperly executed because of negligence on the part of a solicitor? A pragmatic view was…

CHANGES TO CHANCERY PROCEDURE FROM 1st OCTOBER

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

Master Marsh has put out two Practice Notes which deal with changes in Chancery Procedure from the 1st October 2014. The first deals with lodging of documents electronically and in hard copy.  Documents will not be able to be filed…

COSTS CLAIMED AS DAMAGES 2: THE CASE LAW IN DETAIL

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content

I am grateful to P.J.Kirby Q.C. for responding to the previous post on costs claimed as damages.  The situation is far more complex than the passage cited in the Rentokil case suggests. THE ISSUE P.J. asked whether the case of…

WHAT IS THE POSITION WHEN LEGAL COSTS ARE CLAIMED AS A HEAD OF DAMAGES?

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content

The case of Rentokil Initial -v- Goodman Derrick LLP [2014] EWHC 2994 (Ch) was looked at in the previous post in relation to evidence.  However it also raised an interesting issue as to the approach a court should take when a…

LITIGATION: EVIDENCE; MITIGATION OF LOSS AND "BLACK BOXES" IN THE EVIDENCE

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of Rentokil Initial -v- Goodman Derrick LLP [2014] EWHC 2994 (Ch) contains some interesting observations on evidence. In particular what is the position when a party claims privilege and fails to disclose legal advice relating to a settlement…

CORONER'S HEARINGS AND THE USE OF HEARSAY EVIDENCE

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

The Chief Coroner has issued a Law Sheet on the use of Hearsay Evidence in Coroner’s Courts.  It is available here THE KEY POINTS Hearsay evidence is admissible in coroner’s courts. Once it is admitted its value is a matter…

INTERIM COSTS ORDERS: USEFUL GUIDES AND LINKS

September 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

I was asked to speak at the Inaugural meeting of the Yorkshire Branch of the Association of Cost Lawyers recently. One matter that came up in discussion was how rarely applications were made for interim applications for costs.  This can…

CAN YOU GET AN ORDER FOR QOCS TO APPLY ON AN APPEAL? CPR 59.2A CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

September 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

In JE -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192 the Court of Appeal considered whether a QUOCs type order could be made in the Court of Appeal.  The Court also emphasised the importance of prompt…

LIMITATION IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM: DATE OF ACCRUAL; LATENT DAMAGE AND AMENDING UNDER CPR 17.4.(2): A CASE IN POINT

September 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Interface Europe Ltd -v- Premier Hanks Dyers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2610 (QB) Judge Saffman (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the issue of the relevant date of accrual of a cause of action in a breach…

TAKING EVIDENCE; WITNESS STATEMENTS AND NOT MISLEADING THE COURT: BRETT -v- THE SRA CONSIDERED

September 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The question of the duties owed by a lawyer to not mislead the court was at the forefront of the decision yesterday in Brett -v- The Solicitors Regulatory Authority [2014] EWHC 2974 (Admin).  This case has obvious and very wide…

SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM TWO DANGEROUS POINTS TO WATCH

September 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Useful links

Most of the cases and commentary in relation to service concentrate upon late service of the claim form.  However it is possible to fall foul of the rules and serve the particulars of claim late even when the claim form…

E-BUNDLE PRACTICE DIRECTION FROM BIRMINGHAM MERCANTILE COURT: THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

September 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

I posted yesterday on the new procedure for e-bundles in the House of Lords and Privy Council. HH Simon Brown QC has sent me a cop of the e-court direction that applies in the Birmingham Mercantile Court. It probably reflects…

COSTS AFTER VARIATION OF A PART 36 OFFER TO BE LESS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE RECIPIENT: BURRETT -v- MENCAP CONSIDERED

September 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36, Personal Injury

The decision of District Judge Ackroyd in Burreett -v- Mencap Ltd (14th May 2014) was reported on Lawtel earlier this week and is available on Bailli. It contains an important lesson to both defendants and claimants as to costs when…

E-BUNDLES COMING TO THE SUPREME COURT AND PRIVY COUNCIL VERY, VERY SOON

September 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The Supreme Court  has issued guidance on the use of electronic bundles which will be mandatory for a trial period. Parties given permission to appeal in the Supreme Court and Privy Council after the 1st October 2014 will be expected…

MATTERS LEADING UP TO THE MAKING OF A WITNESS STATEMENT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IMMUNITY: COULD YOU BE CROSS-EXAMINED ON THE WAY YOU TOOK A WITNESS STATEMENT?

September 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Statements made in the course of proceedings are usually subject to judicial proceedings immunity.  The scope and extent of this immunity was considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Singh -v- Governing Body of Moorlands Primary School [2013]…

DURRANT CASE BACK IN THE REPORTS: WHAT PRESUMPTIONS SHOULD A JUDGE DRAW WHEN A PARTY IS DEBARRED FROM CALLING WITNESSES?

September 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The case of Durrant  -v- Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset Constabulary [2013]  EWCA Civ 1264 was well known as one of the first reports on sanctions. The defendant police authority was debarred from calling witness evidence as a result…

THE RISK OF INDEMNITY COSTS: WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO TELL YOUR CLIENT?

August 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The idea of costs budgeting was, in part at least, to give the parties some certainty as to the costs they would have to face it they lost an action.   However the decision in  Kellie & Kellie -v- Wheatley &…

COSTS BUDGETING: CONDUCT, INDEMNITY COSTS AND PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT: KELLIE -v- WHEATLEY CONSIDERED

August 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We looked at the decision in Kellie & Kellie -v- Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd[2014] EWHC 2866(TCC) yesterday in the context of drafting witness statements.  The judgment is equally interesting on the issue of costs and costs budgeting. There is an…

A WORKING EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF NOT TAKING A FULL WITNESS STATEMENT: DISASTER CAN STRIKE

August 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The decision of Judge Keyser Q.C. In Kellie & Kellie -v- Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd [2014] EWHC 2866(TCC)  gives a working example of the dangers of not taking a full witness statement and exploring issues of importance with a…

PROTOCOL FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE NEW BITS

August 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content

There has been much coverage of the forthcoming changes to the guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims.  There have been several additions which impose specific duties upon solicitors.  SOLICITOR MUST MAKE POSITION CLEAR IF FURTHER DOCUMENTS ARE…

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FROM DOWN UNDER

August 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links, Witness statements

Recent posts have given rise to a international tour searching out guidance for the preparation and drafting of witness statements. We have been to Scotland, and to the East, and now we arrive in Australia where the Western Australian Bar…

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COMPLYING WITH THE RULES: WHY WITNESS STATEMENTS CAN COME TO GRIEF

August 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The case of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) v. UBS AG [2014] EWHC 2450 (Comm) contains yet another example of the very real dangers of using a witness statement to argue a case.  It is usually unhelpful and often…

WITNESS STATEMENTS; WITNESSES; EVIDENCE AND PSYCHOLOGY: GUIDANCE FROM THE EAST

August 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The post yesterday looked at guidance on taking witness statements from Scottish Judges. Here we look at a real gem of an article by Ula Cartwright-Finch and Alex Waksman of Herbert Smith Freehills on the accuracy of witness statements and…

ANOTHER RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CASE – ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE MP: RELIEF GRANTED AFTER FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF FUNDING

August 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Relief from sanctions was granted to the claimant in Ye0 MP -v- Times Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB). THE ACTION This was a defamation action where the claimant had failed to file notice of funding with the Particulars of…

THE PROCESS OF TAKING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FROM ACROSS THE BORDER

August 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is relatively little guidance to litigators on the process of taking witness statements. What are appropriate questions and, to what extent, can the witness be “guided” by the lawyer.  These are difficult and sensitive topics which have been considered…

CIVIL EVIDENCE AND WITNESS STATEMENTS – HERE’S THE CATCH: THE JUDGE CAN ACCEPT SOME OF THE EVIDENCE SOME OF THE TIME

August 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

There have been several posts on this blog in relation to witness evidence and witness credibility.  One important point to note is that a judge is entitled to find that a witness is correct on some matters and not on…

APPEALS: STAY OF EXECUTION AND CONDITIONS IMPOSED BY APPELLATE COURT: THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES

August 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The fact that an appeal is made, or permission to appeal is granted, does not automatically grant a stay of execution.  The appellant has to apply for a stay and the court can grant conditions.  The law and principles governing…

DENTON APPLIED IN THE TAX & CHANCERY CHAMBER: LEEDS -v- COMMISSIONERS CONSIDERED

August 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the places where Mitchell, and subsequently Denton, had a major impact was the specialist tribunals. As we have seen in this blog Mitchell principles were applied with some vigour and the “clarification” by Denton has also had an effect….

A 20 DAY TRIAL WHEN THE CASE WAS ALL ABOUT ONE WITNESS: WOULD THIS CASE BE ANY DIFFERENT TODAY?

August 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Expert evidence, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Witness statements

Back in 2003 Chris Evans, the radio presenter, was involved in a lengthy contractual dispute with a number of defendants.  There were 9 parties to the action and the trial went on for twenty days. The judge’s observations at the…

PART 36 OFFERS AND NON-MONETARY CLAIMS: A HIGH COURT CASE CONSIDERED

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Risks of litigation

We have looked before at the advantages to a claimant in making an early Part offer. If the claimant matches or beats that offer at trial then there are advantages in costs and interests. There can also be a 10%…

MORE ABOUT TRIAL BUNDLES: MOST OF THE STUFF IN THEM IS USELESS (APPARENTLY)

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

The decision discussed earlier today of Dowdall -v- William Kenyon & Sons Ltd [2014] EWHC 2822 (QB) contained an interesting observation that I wanted to deal with separately. It concerns the “usefulness” of trial bundles. OBSERVATIONS ON THE BUNDLES The Claimant has…

SECOND ACTION AFTER SETTLEMENT NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED: DOWDALL CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Second set of proceedings

The case of Dowdall -v- William Kenyon & Sons Ltd [2014] EWHC 2822 (QB) decided yesterday contains some important observations in relation to allegations of abuse of process; estoppel and section 33. THE FACTS Mr Dowdall has pleural mesotheliomia. In 2003…

FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF AMENDED CFA DETAILS IS NOT A SERIOUS OR SIGNIFICANT BREACH: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The High Court decision in Ultimate Products Ltd -v- Wooley [2014] EWHC 2706 (Ch) provides further guidance as to what the courts are likely to consider “serious or significant” breaches. The High Court judge upheld the decision of the Master…

CIVIL EVIDENCE: WITNESS STATEMENTS: PROVING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ORAL CONTRACT

August 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I have written before about witness evidence and the difficulties in establishing matters without the benefit of corroboration.  The case of Brogden & Reid -v- Investec Bank Ltd [2014] EWHC 2785 (Comm) reported today illustrates this problem. THE ISSUES: WAS THERE AN…

THE MITCHELL CASE RUMBLES ON: MORE PROCEDURAL ISSUES: SPLIT TRIAL ORDERED

August 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I feel almost duty bound to continue to report on the Mitchell case, even if now has limited relevance to the question of sanctions. The latest case management decision offers an interesting decision on whether there should be a split…

DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE TAX TRIBUNAL: ELDER -v- REVENUE & CUSTOMS

August 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton case was considered by the First Tier Chamber: Tax Tribunal in Elder -v- Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 728 (TC). Consideration of the Denton principles led to relief being granted.  The decision is, obviously, specific to the rules relating to…

DENTON PRINCIPLES AND EXTENDING TIME FOR APPEALING: COURT OF APPEAL OBSERVATIONS

August 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The issue of whether the “Denton” principles applied to applications for permission to appeal out of time were considered briefly by the Court of Appeal in Hart -v- Burbridge [2014] EWCA Civ 992 THE ISSUES The appellants appealed out of…

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER FOR E-DISCLOSURE: DECISION THAT A PARTY HAD COMPLIED OVERTURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Striking out

The first instance decision in  Smailes -v- McNally (Re Atrium Training Service) [2013] EWHC 2882 (Ch) was looked at in detail in a previous post in October last year.  It is worth noting that the Court of Appeal have overturned the…

PROPORTIONATE PENALTY FOR BREACH OF DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS: THE AMERICAN APPROACH: MAKE A VIDEO

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

One of the comments in Denton was that a “strict” construction of Mitchell led to disproportionate results.  A judgment reported this week in Above the Law provides an example of how a judge can attempt to remedy continuous defaults. THE ISSUE:…

DENTON APPLIED: A (VERY) BRIEF REPORT

July 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were mentioned, in passing, in the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC In NNN -v- DI [2014] EWHC B14 (QB). The defendant had been in default in serving a list of documents on the claimant.   A peremptory…

← Previous 1 … 131 132 133 … 141 Next →

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

  • CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
  • AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
  • PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
  • “OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS

Top Posts

  • CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
  • AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP - BUT HINDER: "I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT'S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME"
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE "OPINION" EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
  • MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: TIME LIMITS FOR CHALLENGING SOLICITORS' BILLS

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.