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 24
THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL: A "NUANCED APPROACH" IS REQUIRED

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL: A “NUANCED APPROACH” IS REQUIRED

April 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General [2025] EWCA Civ 476 the Court of Appeal considered the Denton principles in the context of extending time for permission to appeal.   The case emphasises that the absence of a good reason for default…

PROVING THINGS 260: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ON ADVERSE INFERENCES: "WE REJECT THIS NEW WAY OF PUTTING THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CASE"

PROVING THINGS 260: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT ON ADVERSE INFERENCES: “WE REJECT THIS NEW WAY OF PUTTING THE ADVERSE INFERENCE CASE”

April 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to David Platt KC for drawing my attention to the Court of Appeal decision in Alexander Johnstone v Fawcett’s Garage (Newbury) Limited [2025] EWCA Civ 467, in particular to the judgment in relation to adverse inferences.  The Court of…

COST BITES 227 : THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ORDER THE CLAIMANT TO PAY 80% OF THE COSTS OF TWO APPLICATIONS:  DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

COST BITES 227 : THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT TO ORDER THE CLAIMANT TO PAY 80% OF THE COSTS OF TWO APPLICATIONS: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

April 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to James Packer of Duncan Lewis for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Mlundira -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2025] EWHC 189 (KB), a copy of which…

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE OVERRIDDEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE (UNCHALLENGED) EXPERT WITNESS: CLAIMANT WAS ENTITLED TO DAMAGES FOR PSYCHIATRIC INJURY

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Sarah Jane Young v John Anthony Downey [2025] EWCA Civ 177 the Court of Appeal sent out another reminder that there are difficulties in trial judges attempting to override the views of expert witnesses.       “… in the circumstances…

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

EXPERT EVIDENCE FOR HOUSING LAWYERS: WEBINAR 14th MAY 2025

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

I am giving a webinar for  the Steve Cornforth Consultance on the 14th May 2025.  It is aimed at housing lawyers and aims to have a comprehensive look at the rules, guidance and cases on the use of experts in…

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: TEN KEY POINTS CONSIDERED: ACT PROMPLY, ACT PROPERLY AND DON'T TELL LIES

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: TEN KEY POINTS CONSIDERED: ACT PROMPLY, ACT PROPERLY AND DON’T TELL LIES

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

Legal Futures carries a report of a paralegal banned from the profession because she tried to cover up a mistake by lying to the court.  This gives me a reason to reiterate points made regularly on this blog about what…

"ARGUMENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS":  GUIDANCE ON WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT

“ARGUMENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS”: GUIDANCE ON WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The Commercial Court report for 2023 – 2024 shows that there have been some changes to the Commercial Court Guide. The  Guide has removed the requirement to obtain permission for a witness statement to exceed 30 pages.  It is hoped…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE "EXPERT EVIDENCE" FROM THE CLAIMANT'S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE...

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE “EXPERT EVIDENCE” FROM THE CLAIMANT’S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE…

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

We are returning to the judgment of Jason Beer KC Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC and staying with the issue of “expert” evidence. This time looking at the attempt of…

CLAIMANT ENTITLED TO COSTS TO BE ASSESSED AFTER LATE ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: EVEN THOUGH FIXED COSTS APPLIED AT THE TIME THE OFFER WAS MADE

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN  Attersley v UK Insurance Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 217 I am grateful to barrister Thomas Mason for drawing my attention to the judgment today in Laura Attersley v UK…

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

PROVING THINGS 259: WHEN THE COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR THE EXPERTS TO GIVE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL: THESE ARE BASICALLY ISSUES OF FACT

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC dismissed the claimant’s application that forensic accountants give evidence at trial.  The experts had basically agreed that there were issues of fact to…

"THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK": COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN

“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK”: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN

April 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Stephen Herbert Hunt v Oceania Capital Reserves Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 837 (Ch) Master Brightwell refused the second and third defendants application for relief from sanctions in a case where the costs budget was served late.  However it…

VARDY -v- ROONEY: CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IN COSTS ASSESSMENT FAILS TO CROSS THE LINE

VARDY -v- ROONEY: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT THAT DEFENDANT HAD BEEN GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT IN COSTS ASSESSMENT FAILS TO CROSS THE LINE

April 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In  Rebekah Vardy v Coleen Rooney [2025] EWHC 851 (KB) Mr Justice Cavanagh rejected the claimant’s arguments that the defendant’s solicitors had misconducted themselves improperly and that there should consequently be a disallowance of some of the costs claimed by the…

PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFEREES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS

PART 36: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS RECOVER ADDITIONAL SUMS: PART 36 CONSEQUENCES ARE THERE TO INCENTIVISE OFFEREES TO ACCEPT REASONABLE OFFERS

April 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Thomas Barry & Anor v Denis Barry  [2025] EWHC 819 (KB) Mr Justice Dexter Dias rejected the defendant’s argument that the claimants should not receive an additional amount in circumstances where they had beaten their own Part 36 offers.  The…

PROVING THINGS 258: GENERIC WITNESS STATEMENTS RARELY IMPRESS A COURT: CLAIM FOR £50,190.24 REDUCED TO £1,197: A CAR CRASH OF A CASE

PROVING THINGS 258: GENERIC WITNESS STATEMENTS RARELY IMPRESS A COURT: CLAIM FOR £50,190.24 REDUCED TO £1,197: A CAR CRASH OF A CASE

April 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

In David Wiltshire v Aioi Nissay Dowa Insurance Company of Europe [2025] EWCC 13 District Judge Lumb rejected most of the claimant’s claim for damages following damage to his car.  The claimant’s oral evidence differed greatly from his witness statement.  These differences…

SPORTING INJURIES IN THE COURTS: WEBINAR 17TH APRIL 2025: SOME INTERESTING TOPICS TO TACKLE...

SPORTING INJURIES IN THE COURTS: WEBINAR 17TH APRIL 2025: SOME INTERESTING TOPICS TO TACKLE…

April 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

Injuries to those involved in sports are not unusual.  The issues relating to whether injuries are the result of negligence are complex ones. This webinar looks at the law relating to sporting injuries and, importantly, at the practical issues that…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: NO IMPLIED DUTY ON A CLAIMANT TO TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS STILL AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: NO IMPLIED DUTY ON A CLAIMANT TO TAKE STEPS TO ENSURE THAT THE DEFENDANT IS STILL AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS

April 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

I am grateful to barrister Anthony Reddiford for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Truman in  Aston -v- Tew & Alwyn Insurance Company Ltd [2025] EWCC 20 , a copy of which is available here. Aston -v-…

PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE "RELEVANT PERIOD": THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT

PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT

April 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…

COST BITES 226: ARE THE COSTS OF DELEGATION RECOVERABLE? POTENTIALLY - BUT THERE IS A CAVEAT - IT MUST NOT LEAD TO INCREASED COSTS

COST BITES 226: ARE THE COSTS OF DELEGATION RECOVERABLE? POTENTIALLY – BUT THERE IS A CAVEAT – IT MUST NOT LEAD TO INCREASED COSTS

April 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content

It is prudent for litigators of every type to take a look at decisions made on the assessment of costs. The fundamental questions  “am I going to get paid for doing this?” or “Is my client going to recover the…

ACCOMMODATION AND APPLIANCE CLAIMS: THE CASES SINCE SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: WEBINAR 15th APRIL 2025

ACCOMMODATION AND APPLIANCE CLAIMS: THE CASES SINCE SWIFT -v- CARPENTER: WEBINAR 15th APRIL 2025

April 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

Issues relating to accommodation costs and aids and appliances feature in many moderate to serious personal injury cases.  There are relatively few cases where the principles governing damages are considered. This webinar looks at the principles and the practical steps…

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS "APPALLING": ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS "TERRIFYING"

EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS IS JUST ABOUT AS BAD AS IT GETS: EXPERT CONCEDES THAT PARTS OF THEIR EVIDENCE WAS “APPALLING”: ONE OF THE PARTIES DESCRIBED IT AS “TERRIFYING”

April 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In LB Croydon v D (Critical Scrutiny of the Paedeatric Overview) [2024] EWFC 438 HHJ Kathryn Major (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) was severely critical of the medical evidence called by the local authority.  That part of the…

LITIGATION "WHACK-A-MOLE" - THE MOVING TARGET AND POOR PLEADINGS - IN A CASE ABOUT ALLEGEDLY POOR PLEADINGS

LITIGATION “WHACK-A-MOLE” – THE MOVING TARGET AND POOR PLEADINGS – IN A CASE ABOUT ALLEGEDLY POOR PLEADINGS

April 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are looking again at the judgment of Mr Justice Saini in Israel Russell v Barry Coulter [2025] EWHC 493 (KB).  This was a case alleging that the defendant barrister had pleaded a case badly.  The claim was rejected. However it is…

DEFENDANT'S POINT ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM NOT ACCEPTED: THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS

DEFENDANT’S POINT ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM NOT ACCEPTED: THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS

April 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

The judgment of Fordham J in  Baz v General Dental Council [2025] EWHC 643 (Admin) contained an interesting issue in relation to service of the claim form.   The defendant conceded that the claim form had been properly placed in the…

COST BITES 225: A PEEK INSIDE THE BUDGETING PROCESS: "PROPORTIONALITY TRUMPS REASONABLENESS"

COST BITES 225: A PEEK INSIDE THE BUDGETING PROCESS: “PROPORTIONALITY TRUMPS REASONABLENESS”

April 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We get a rare chance to look inside the costs budgeting process in the judgment of Master Brightwell in  Atlantic Ways Holding SA v Freetown Terminal Holding Ltd [2025] EWHC 674 (Ch). The rationale behind each budgeting decision is set…

COST BITES 224 :  SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT'S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT'S COSTS DESCRIBED AS "INCREDIBLE)"

COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”

April 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO)  Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8.  The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 5 : THE CLAIMANT CAN'T NOW ARGUE SOMETHING CONTRARY TO HIS OWN PLEADED CASE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 5 : THE CLAIMANT CAN’T NOW ARGUE SOMETHING CONTRARY TO HIS OWN PLEADED CASE

March 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are looking at another case in which the pleadings played a significant part. In Daniel Maurice Wagner v Bright Station Ventures Management Limited [2025] EWHC 669 (KB) Mr Justice Sweeting rejected an argument from the claimant that was contrary…

DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY: RECENT CASES AND LESSONS TO LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 8th APRIL 2025

DAMAGES FOR PAIN, SUFFERING AND LOSS OF AMENITY: RECENT CASES AND LESSONS TO LEARN FROM THEM: WEBINAR 8th APRIL 2025

March 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

Awards for pain and suffering are made in every personal injury case. However the law and principles relating to these awards are rarely considered by practitioners. This webinar takes a close look at recent awards to enable practitioners to know,…

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

PROVING THINGS TWO 257: TWO (PRESUMABLY VERY EXPENSIVE EXPERTS) ON LOSS AND THEY ARE BOTH OF NO HELP TO THE COURT:

March 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In H&P Advisory Limited v Barrick Gold (Holdings) Limited (formerly Randgold Resources Limited) [2025] EWHC 562 (Ch)   Mr Simon Gleeson found that the experts for each party were of no assistance in assessing the value of the work done by…

APPLICATIONS TO ADJOURN A TRIAL BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH: APPLICATION REFUSED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DID NOT ADDRESS SOME KEY ISSUES

APPLICATIONS TO ADJOURN A TRIAL BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH: APPLICATION REFUSED BECAUSE THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE DID NOT ADDRESS SOME KEY ISSUES

March 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Nigel Mather & Ors v Lakbir Basran & Ors [2025] EWHC 438 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, refused the defendant’s application for an adjournment of the ongoing trial. The defendant had produced medical evidence…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 4: A FAILURE BY A CLAIMANT TO ADEQUATELY PARTICULARISE ITS CASE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 4: A FAILURE BY A CLAIMANT TO ADEQUATELY PARTICULARISE ITS CASE

March 25, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Members Content, Statements of Case

When you start looking for cases about pleadings it is surprising how issues in relation to statements of case keep popping up.  We see it in the judgment of  Jeremy Hyam KC in  Kau Media Group Limited v Thomas Hart [2025] EWHC…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XVI: THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO READ THE JUDGE’S BODY LANGUAGE

March 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

Many of the posts in this series revisit previous series on the judge’s view. This post looks at the recent case of Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB). The judge made certain observations when disallowing the evidence of a…

TIME FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A "SECOND APPEAL": COURT REFUSES TO GRANT EXTENSION

TIME FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: A “SECOND APPEAL”: COURT REFUSES TO GRANT EXTENSION

March 21, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

For the second time this week we are looking at issues relating to extension of time and appeals. In Abbotsley Ltd v Pheasantland Ltd [2025] EWHC 654 (KB) HHJ Karen Walden-Smith provided a timely reminder that a party who wishes…

UPDATE TO PROFESSIONAL USER GUIDANCE FOR THE DAMAGES CLAIMS PORTAL: SEE THE NEW DOCUMENT HERE

UPDATE TO PROFESSIONAL USER GUIDANCE FOR THE DAMAGES CLAIMS PORTAL: SEE THE NEW DOCUMENT HERE

March 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

The Professional User Guidance for the Damages Claim Portal has been updated this month. Anyone using the Portal is best advised to have the new guidance to hand.   THE UPDATED GUIDANCE The document from HMCTS  can be found here…

NOW HERE'S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT - WHO HAD CAPACITY

NOW HERE’S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT – WHO HAD CAPACITY

March 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In David Forsyth v Craig Howson & Anor [2025] EWHC 653 (KB)  HHJ Claire Evans (sitting as Judge of the High Court) refused an unusual application by the defendants.  The claimant had capacity to litigate and yet the defendants sought an order…

CHANGE IN COURT FEES FROM 8th APRIL 2025: LINK TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION

CHANGE IN COURT FEES FROM 8th APRIL 2025: LINK TO THE PRACTICE DIRECTION

March 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

An earlier post set out the changes to court fees that are coming into force on the 8th April 2025.  The Practice Direction that brings those changes into force has now been passed.   THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The Court and…

THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER

THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER

March 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Professional negligence,

In Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) [2025] EWHC 602 (Ch) Master Kaye refused the claimant’s application for a split trial.  The judgment considers in detail the guidance from the authorities and the matters the court should take into account….

"A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY": WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL

“A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY”: WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL

March 18, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Extensions of time, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Hayden in  F (A Minor) (Permission To Appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 (Fam) highlights a trap for those seeking permission to appeal.  The time for appealing runs from the date that the order was announced and…

PROVING DAMAGES - THE CLAIMANT LAWYER'S BASIC TASK: WEBINAR 19th MARCH 2025

PROVING DAMAGES – THE CLAIMANT LAWYER’S BASIC TASK: WEBINAR 19th MARCH 2025

March 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Webinar

The “Proving Things” series on this blog is now up to number 256.  The vast majority of this series is, in fact, about not proving things.  That is where litigants fail to bring sufficient (sometimes any) evidence to court to prove…

COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)

COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)

March 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

I sometimes have to remind people (and remind myself) that one of the aims of this series is to keep an eye on costs awards that are actually made at hearings at trial.  This provides an insight into what is…

COST BITES 222: A "RETROSPECTIVE" CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

COST BITES 222: A “RETROSPECTIVE” CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT WAS STILL VALID AND THE PAYING PARTY HAD TO PAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

March 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Singh & Ors v Ingram [2025] EWCA Civ 264 the Court of Appeal rejected an argument that a retrospective conditional fee agreement was invalid. The Court was, to say the least, suspicious of argument that the receiving party’s solicitors…

ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

March 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

In John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd [2025] EWHC 594 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that a party had breached the rules relating to the embargo on a draft…

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors,  for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here.   It is a case…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 3: EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT NECESSARY, NOT PROPORTIONATE AND DID NOT REALLY RELATE TO THE PLEADED ISSUES

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There is a consideration of the principles relating to the use of expert evidence in the judgment of Mr Justice Fancourt in Cohen & Ors v Co-operative Group Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 526 (Ch).  The judge rejected the claimants’…

SERIES OF 10 WEBINARS ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: AND YOU CAN BUY A "SEASON TICKET"

SERIES OF 10 WEBINARS ON PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: AND YOU CAN BUY A “SEASON TICKET”

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

The APIL Damages Series is 10 webinars looking at key elements of law and practice relating to personal injury damages.  The webinars can be bought and watched individually. APIL has a special offer for all 10, details available here.  …

COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY...)

COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY…)

March 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 HHJ Peter Marquand refused a claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. The claimant had issued Part 8 proceedings but failed to serve the witness evidence and particulars with the proceedings by the rules. …

PREPARING BUNDLES: A FREE ONLINE TOOL THAT MAY WELL HELP:  INTRODUCING "BUNTOOL"

PREPARING BUNDLES: A FREE ONLINE TOOL THAT MAY WELL HELP: INTRODUCING “BUNTOOL”

March 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The last few weeks have seen a number of cases where judges have been critical (if not despairing) at the quality of the the bundles used at trials and applications.  My attention has been drawn to “BunTool” a free online…

HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

March 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

HM Courts and Tribunal Services have published two documents to help legal professionals issue and manage an online money claim.   THE DOCUMENTS 1. Issue and online money claim as a legal professional 2. Manage and online money claim as…

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: "THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS"

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO ABRIDGE TIME FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF AN OFFER: “THERE IS A POLICY INCENTIVE IN REQUIRING LITIGANTS TO MAKE TIMELY PART 36 OFFERS”

March 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

The judgment in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Price [2020] EWHC 3276 (Ch) was given in October 2020, but has only recently arrived on BAILII. It concerns late service of a Part 36 offer.  This is an issue rarely considered…

"THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROBATE CLAIM IN THAT THE DECEASED SAYS SHE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE": A CHAOTIC TRIAL WHERE NO-ONE SEEMS TO HAVE THE SAME PAGINATION IN THE BUNDLES: AND THATS NOT EVEN HALF OF THE PROBLEMS...

“THIS IS AN UNUSUAL PROBATE CLAIM IN THAT THE DECEASED SAYS SHE IS VERY MUCH ALIVE”: A CHAOTIC TRIAL WHERE NO-ONE SEEMS TO HAVE THE SAME PAGINATION IN THE BUNDLES: AND THATS NOT EVEN HALF OF THE PROBLEMS…

March 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content

 The past few weeks have led to a number of cases about bundles. My working theory about trial and application bundles is that problematic bundles often reflect a  much deeper malaise in the case itself.   Support for that theory can…

COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT'S COSTS

COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS

March 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

In Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) Mr Justice Constable rejected the claimant’s argument that the successful defendant’s refusal to attend mediation should lead to a reduction in the defendant’s costs.  The case…

IT WOULD BE AN "AFFRONT TO JUSTICE" TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT'S CLAIM TO SUCCEED: "LIES IN THE COURSE OF LITIGATION ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE COURT": SOME VERY UNCLEAN HANDS...

IT WOULD BE AN “AFFRONT TO JUSTICE” TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT’S CLAIM TO SUCCEED: “LIES IN THE COURSE OF LITIGATION ARE OFFENSIVE TO THE COURT”: SOME VERY UNCLEAN HANDS…

March 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

We are looking again at the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews in Bains v Irshad & Anor [2025] EWHC 491 (Ch). This time about the consequences of telling lies to the court.  The equitable doctrine that most lawyers remember best is the…

← Previous 1 … 23 24 25 … 144 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN OFFER TO SETTLE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR COSTS MAY WELL BE INEFFECTIVE: IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A PETITION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
  • IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL – MAKE SURE YOU ARE AVAILABLE…: JUDGE SAYS THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THIS ISSUE
  • COST BITES 398: MORE BUDGETING IN THE MERCEDES-BENZ LITIGATION: ONLY A “MODEST” REDUCTION OF £1 MILLION HERE: BUT WHY (THE COURT ASKS) WEREN’T REALISTICALLY REDUCED FIGURES PUT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: “AVOID BULLSHIT, SMOKE AND MIRRORS” (OH AND “WELL PADDED VANITY” (JUNE 2016
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

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.