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 49
COST BITES 15:  DEPARTING FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES FOR SPECIALIST WORK  DONE OUTSIDE LONDON

COST BITES 15: DEPARTING FROM THE GUIDELINE RATES FOR SPECIALIST WORK DONE OUTSIDE LONDON

August 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Lappet Manufacturing Company Ltd & Anor v Rassam & Ors [2022] EWHC 2158 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson allowed a higher hourly rate for a solicitor working outside London. The rate allowed, for a Nottingham firm, was £350 an…

THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

August 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

There is one very tricky area of limitation law that I wanted to return to following the judgment in Coote -v- Ullstein [2022] EWHC 606 (QB). The case was looked at in detail here.  However I want to concentrate on the…

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED

August 11, 2022 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I was informed recently that permission to appeal was refused in the case of Greyson -v- Fuller.   I am grateful to Simon Fisher from DWF for sending me a copy of the decision in Glendining -v- McCarthy,* where DDJ Causton…

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A "DUTY OF GOOD FAITH" TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT

August 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Candey Ltd v Bosheh & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1103 Lord Justice Coulson rejected an argument that a client, who has entered into a conditional fee agreement with a solicitor, owed a duty of good faith to that solicitor. …

A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON

A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON

August 10, 2022 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Committal proceedings, Members Content

In Nambiar v Solitair Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1135 the Court of Appeal held that an appeal against a committal order should be struck out as an abuse of process.  Prior to sentencing the appellant had issued an earlier, identical,…

PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: "PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY"

PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”

August 9, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Holly Wright (& others) -v- Birmingham City Council District Judge Baldwin (sitting as Regional Costs Judge)* rejected an attempt by a defendant to obtain its costs where it accepted the claimants’ Part 36 offers late.  The judge held that…

AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS "WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS" AND "BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS": CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS...

AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…

August 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Committal proceedings, Injunctions, Members Content

For the second time today I am writing about an injunction case which failed because the claimant had failed to prove compliance with an order for service. However this particular case has more sinister overtones.  The claimant attempted to bring…

PROVING THINGS 235: PROVING SERVICE: COUNCIL'S WHOLESALE FAILURE TO SERVE CLAIM FORMS PROPERLY: ATTEMPTS AT PERSONAL SERVICE WERE A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS

PROVING THINGS 235: PROVING SERVICE: COUNCIL’S WHOLESALE FAILURE TO SERVE CLAIM FORMS PROPERLY: ATTEMPTS AT PERSONAL SERVICE WERE A PREREQUISITE TO SERVICE BY ALTERNATIVE MEANS

August 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Service of the claim form

An important point as to service of the claim form arose in the judgment of Mr Justice Nicklin in Thurrock Council v Stokes & Ors [2022] EWHC 1998 (QB). The claimant had issued proceedings against multiple defendants. It obtained an…

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Periodically I write reminders of the importance of being able to calculate time periods correctly. Sometime a miscalculation can lead to fundamental problems. AN EXAMPLE OF MISCALCULATION In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned…

"KAFKAESQUE" PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A "TANGLE" AND A "MUDDLE"

“KAFKAESQUE” PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A “TANGLE” AND A “MUDDLE”

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 201 the Court of Appeal resolved procedural issues which it described as a “muddle” and “kafkaesque”.  The issue was a simple one of whether a litigant was entitled to transcripts…

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We have looked, many times, at issues relating to procedure after the handing down of a draft judgment. The Court of Appeal judgment in George v Cannell & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1067 highlights one of the difficulties that arise. …

A COURT, ON A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT, CANNOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR ECONOMIC DURESS: DEFENDANT'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

A COURT, ON A SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT, CANNOT CONSIDER ASSERTIONS OF UNDUE INFLUENCE OR ECONOMIC DURESS: DEFENDANT’S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In  Lisa Jones v Richard Slade And Company Ltd [2022] EWHC 1968 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson overturned a decision that the court, on a Solicitors Act assessment, can determine issues of undue influence or economic duress.  The judge held that…

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman pointed out that the appellant’s argument in relation to pleading and burden of proof ran contrary to the rules.  There is…

"MISSING" WHATSAPP POSTS AND A PHONE LOST AT SEA: WHAT INFERENCES WOULD THE COURT DRAW?

“MISSING” WHATSAPP POSTS AND A PHONE LOST AT SEA: WHAT INFERENCES WOULD THE COURT DRAW?

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Disclosure, Members Content

The facts in Vardy v Rooney [2022] EWHC 2017 (QB) are well known and have received wide publicity.  Here we look solely at the evidential issues relating to the “missing” evidence. In particular the amount of WhatsApp material that went…

COST BITES 14: TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT AWARD THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATION FOR FURTHER TIME

COST BITES 14: TIME FOR PAYMENT OF COURT AWARD THERE SHOULD BE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT ANY APPLICATION FOR FURTHER TIME

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment in Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1955 (Comm) Ms Lesley Anderson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge).   It is quite common for a party ordered to pay costs to…

CLAIMANT FAILS TO GET AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT HAD LOST THE FILE AND NOT SENT OUT A SEALED CLAIM FORM WITHIN THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD

CLAIMANT FAILS TO GET AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: IN A CASE WHERE THE COURT HAD LOST THE FILE AND NOT SENT OUT A SEALED CLAIM FORM WITHIN THE FOUR MONTH PERIOD

August 3, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL. SEE THE BLOG POST ABOUT THE APPEAL DECISION HERE. The judgment of Robin Vos (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in Walton v Pickerings Solicitors & Anor…

COST BITES 13: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION: TOO MANY LAWYERS, NO NEED FOR A QC

COST BITES 13: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS IN ACTION: TOO MANY LAWYERS, NO NEED FOR A QC

August 1, 2022 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

In Lenkor Energy Trading DMCC v Puri [2022] EWHC 1958 (Comm) the court carried out a summary assessment of the defendant’s costs, the grounds for the reductions are instructive.  They show the grounds on which costs are reduced on assessment….

COST BITES 12: A DEFENDANT WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO AN APPEAL CAN STILL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THAT APPEAL

COST BITES 12: A DEFENDANT WHO IS NOT A PARTY TO AN APPEAL CAN STILL BE ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF THAT APPEAL

July 29, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Turner & Ors v Thomas & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1944 (Ch) Mr Justice Zacaroli considered the appropriate principles to be applied as to costs when a defendant was not a party to an appeal made by a co-defendant….

THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST AND A REMINDER

THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF A WITNESS STATEMENT: A CHECKLIST AND A REMINDER

July 28, 2022 · by gexall · in Members Content, Witness statements

This checklist covers the basic element of witness statements. It does not cover all the requirements of statements in the Business and Property Courts, guidance on those specific rules can be found in several posts on this blog, here  and…

THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM: "CLEAR WATER" BETWEEN THE TWO TESTS: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS ORDER SETTING ASIDE A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR SERVICE

THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM: “CLEAR WATER” BETWEEN THE TWO TESTS: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS ORDER SETTING ASIDE A PROSPECTIVE APPLICATION FOR SERVICE

July 27, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In ST v BAI (SA) Trading As Brittany Ferries [2022] EWCA Civ 1037  the Court of Appeal overturned a decision, itself made on appeal, where a prospective application to extend time for service of the claim form was set aside….

COST BITES 11: INTEREST ON COSTS: JUDGE FINDS IT APPROPRIATE TO BACKDATE INTEREST

July 27, 2022 · by gexall · in Costs, Interest, Members Content

In Vitol SA v Genser Energy Ghana Ltd [2022] EWHC 1955 (Comm) Ms Lesley Anderson QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered whether interest should be payable on costs from a date before judgment. She held that interest…

THE FIRST TIME YOU MAKE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DRAFT ORDER AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING

THE FIRST TIME YOU MAKE A CLAIM FOR DAMAGES – SHOULD NOT BE IN THE DRAFT ORDER AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING

July 26, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content

There is an interesting short judgment of the Court of Appeal in BG & Anor, R (On the Application Of) v Suffolk County Council (Consequentials) [2022] EWCA Civ 1053 relating to an attempt by the successful party to put an…

COST BITES 10:  COURT OF APPEAL UNHAPPY AT £730,000 BILL FOR ONE DAY APPEAL: HOURLY RATES ABOVE GUIDELINES HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED, COUNSEL'S FEES MUST BE REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE

COST BITES 10: COURT OF APPEAL UNHAPPY AT £730,000 BILL FOR ONE DAY APPEAL: HOURLY RATES ABOVE GUIDELINES HAVE TO BE JUSTIFIED, COUNSEL’S FEES MUST BE REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONATE

July 26, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In  Athena Capital Fund SICAV-FIS SCA & Ors v Secretariat of State for the Holy See (Costs) [2022] EWCA Civ 1061 the Court of Appeal were concerned about the level of costs being claimed in a one day appeal.  The…

PROVING THINGS 234: PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELAY BY EVIDENCE -  NOT BY SUBMISSIONS

PROVING THINGS 234: PROVIDE AN EXPLANATION FOR DELAY BY EVIDENCE – NOT BY SUBMISSIONS

July 26, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Extensions of time, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Henshaw in  Hays & Ors v Bloomfield Investments LLC [2022] EWHC 1648 (Comm) was on a very specific area of procedure.  However there is one matter of more general interest. The need to have evidence…

PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: THE IMPORTANCE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: WEBINAR 9th SEPTEMBER 2022

PERIODICAL PAYMENTS AND PROVISIONAL DAMAGES: THE IMPORTANCE OF RECENT DEVELOPMENTS: WEBINAR 9th SEPTEMBER 2022

July 25, 2022 · by gexall · in Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Webinar

This webinar looks at recent cases in relation to periodical payments and provisional damages and considers their practical implications for personal injury practitioners.  Booking details are available here.   WEBINAR CONTENTS Cases to be considered include: The decision in Mathieu v…

COST BITES 9: FARES FAIR: IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS YOU CAN HAVE A "SCORE DRAW" AND EACH SIDE GETS NO COSTS

COST BITES 9: FARES FAIR: IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS YOU CAN HAVE A “SCORE DRAW” AND EACH SIDE GETS NO COSTS

July 25, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In  United Trade Action Group Ltd, R (On the Application Of) v Transport for London & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1026 the Court of  Appeal upheld a decision that there be no order for costs between the parties in judicial…

Witness statements in the client’s own words: Witness statements when the client’s first language is not English: Webinar today

Witness statements in the client’s own words: Witness statements when the client’s first language is not English: Webinar today

July 25, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Webinar, Witness statements

I am giving a webinar on the 25th July 2022 at 12.00 on “Witness statements in the client’s own words: Witness statements when the client’s first language is not English.”  Booking details can be found here.  (The webinar will be…

YOU CAN'T RAISE A NEW CLAIM IN A RESPONSE TO A PART 18 REQUEST: THE PLEADED CASE REMAINS IMPORTANT

YOU CAN’T RAISE A NEW CLAIM IN A RESPONSE TO A PART 18 REQUEST: THE PLEADED CASE REMAINS IMPORTANT

July 22, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Costa v DissociaDID Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1934 (IPEC) HHJ Hacon rejected the defendants’ attempt to argue points that were not pleaded.  The only time an issue had been raised was in response to Part 18 requests.   This…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: KEY POINTS AND ISSUES: A REMINDER

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: KEY POINTS AND ISSUES: A REMINDER

July 22, 2022 · by gexall · in Members Content, Written advocacy

Periodically I reprise the links to online guidance on skeleton arguments. Here we have a series of links to posts and articles giving guidance on written submissions. “Sir James Hunt has told us of the (unattributed) judicial reaction on receiving…

THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON CAN BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY WHEN THERE IS A  PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

THE ESTATE OF A DECEASED PERSON CAN BE SUBSTITUTED AS A PARTY WHEN THERE IS A PROVISIONAL DAMAGES ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 22, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  Power v Bernard Hastie & Company Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1927 (QB) Mr Justice Johnson held that the estate of a claimant who had obtained a provisional damages order can take advantage of that order.  The order was…

CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT A BICYCLE

CLAIMANT FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT A BICYCLE

July 21, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

My attention has recently been drawn to the judgment of HHJ Ralton in Darnley -v- Cornish 2021 WL 04760420.  The judge, on appeal, overturned a finding that a claimant, who had misled the court as to ownership of a bicycle…

COST BITES 8: CENTRAL LONDON HOURLY RATES: THE RATE DEPENDS ON THE LITIGATION NOT THE LITIGATOR

COST BITES 8: CENTRAL LONDON HOURLY RATES: THE RATE DEPENDS ON THE LITIGATION NOT THE LITIGATOR

July 21, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

In Brake & Anor v Guy & Ors [2022] EWHC 1911 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge).  Considered the appropriate hourly rate to be applied on an application. Although costs were being assessed on an indemnity…

COURT OF APPEAL REJECTS INGENIOUS ARGUMENT THAT PERMISSION GROUNDS SHOULD BE RE-OPENED - AFTER THE APPEAL

COURT OF APPEAL REJECTS INGENIOUS ARGUMENT THAT PERMISSION GROUNDS SHOULD BE RE-OPENED – AFTER THE APPEAL

July 21, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

I have written more about applications for permission to appeal in the past few weeks than in the previous nine years.   The Court of Appeal judgment in  Ingenious Games LLP & Ors v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs…

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS MADE OUT OF TIME: THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPLICATION

APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS MADE OUT OF TIME: THE TRIAL JUDGE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THE APPLICATION

July 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content

There is another aspect of the judgment in Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) that is worth considering. The unsuccessful defendants applied for permission to appeal to the trial judge at the hearing…

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: HAVE COGENT EVIDENCE (AND A DRAFT DEFENCE) TO HAND: DEFENDANT'S DELAY ALONE WOULD HAVE LED TO APPLICATION BEING REFUSED IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: HAVE COGENT EVIDENCE (AND A DRAFT DEFENCE) TO HAND: DEFENDANT’S DELAY ALONE WOULD HAVE LED TO APPLICATION BEING REFUSED IN A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

July 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

I am grateful to Barrister Leslie Keegan for their note of the judgment of Master Cook in Buckingham -v- Elneil (15th July 2022)*. The Master refused the defendant’s application to set aside a default judgment.  The defendant did not have…

CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER WHICH INVOLVED A 1.15% DISCOUNT WAS A GENUINE ONE:EVEN A NARROW MARGIN MEANS DEFENDANTS FACE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES

CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER WHICH INVOLVED A 1.15% DISCOUNT WAS A GENUINE ONE:EVEN A NARROW MARGIN MEANS DEFENDANTS FACE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES

July 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Part 36

In Omya UK Ltd v Andrews Excavations Ltd & Anor [2022] EWHC 1882 (TCC) Mr Roger Ter Haar QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, found that a claimant’s offer that was some 1.15% less than the sum awarded…

WEBINARS ON KEEPING YOUR COOL: UNDERSETTLEMENT, PROCEDURAL PITFALLS AND LIMITATION PROBLEMS: AVOIDING MATTERS HEATING UP WHEN THE HEATWAVE IS OVER

WEBINARS ON KEEPING YOUR COOL: UNDERSETTLEMENT, PROCEDURAL PITFALLS AND LIMITATION PROBLEMS: AVOIDING MATTERS HEATING UP WHEN THE HEATWAVE IS OVER

July 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Damages, Limitation, Members Content, Webinar

In September I am presenting a number of webinars with the theme of “avoiding problems”. These are avoiding undersettlement: avoiding procedural pitfalls and avoiding problems with limitation.   “AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT:  A GUIDE FOR PERSONAL INJURY LAWYERS” 19th September 2022  …

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS "FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS"

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”

July 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Coronavirus, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence.  The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 93: THE TIME FOR SERVING AN APPLICATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN MADE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 93: THE TIME FOR SERVING AN APPLICATION AFTER IT HAS BEEN MADE

July 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content

The previous post about the judgment in AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) involved a case where the defendants had waited for two months to serve an application.   This was not a critical…

DELAY IN APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: FAILURE TO BE PROMPT IS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR

DELAY IN APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: FAILURE TO BE PROMPT IS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR

July 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

In  AMRA Leasing Ltd v DAC Aviation (EA) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1718 (Comm) Mr Justice Jacobs refused the defendants’ application to set aside a default judgment.  The defendants’ delay in making the application, and then a further delay…

COST BITES 7: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS TRIED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE LITIGATION CHERRY

COST BITES 7: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT HAS TRIED TO HAVE A SECOND BITE OF THE LITIGATION CHERRY

July 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Tinkler v Esken Ltd (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1802 (Ch) Mr Justice Leech ordered indemnity costs against a claimant who, in essence, attempted to relitigate a case he had lost on previously.   “A principal difference between an order for…

CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT "JOB OFFER": FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000

CLAIMANT LIED ABOUT “JOB OFFER”: FOUND TO BE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST AND LOSES £130,000

July 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

I am grateful to Aled Morris  from Horwich Farrelly for sending me a transcript of the judgment of HHJ Murdock in Hawkins -v- Holmes (County Court at Leicester, 1st April 2022).   It is a case where the court found the…

TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES ... AND YOU'RE OUT

TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES … AND YOU’RE OUT

July 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT.  SEE THE LATER POST ON THE DECISION HERE. In Abbott & 3,499 Ors v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB) Master Davison rejected the claimant’s arguments that it was permissible…

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTICULARS OF CLAIM WERE SERVED ONE DAY LATE

July 14, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

There were complicated factors involved in the judgment of Deputy Master Marsh in Croke & Anor v National Westminster Bank Plc & Ors [2022] EWHC 1367 (Ch), however the action failed because the claimant was one day late in serving…

THE COURT CANNOT EXTEND TIME FOR ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION

July 13, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Part 36

A defendant is entitled to make an early Part 36 offer. This, undoubtedly causes difficulties for many claimants. The rules relating to late acceptance are fairly unsympathetic. Nor is it possible to for a claimant to make a prospective application…

A DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL CANNOT SIMPLY TURN THE CLOCK BACK: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPLICATION UNDER CPR 39.3

July 13, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Mabrouk v Murray [2022] EWCA Civ 960 the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in a case where the defendant failed to attend the trial.   The Court of Appeal dismissed the application under CPR…

COST BITES 6: GETTING A SCHEDULE OF COSTS TO COURT

COST BITES 6: GETTING A SCHEDULE OF COSTS TO COURT

July 13, 2022 · by gexall · in Committal proceedings, Costs, Members Content

The claimant’s failure to provide costs schedules, and eventual compliance, can be seen in a series of judgments by HHJ Emma Kelly in  cases brought by North Warwickshire Borough Council.  The cases move from non-compliance to attempted compliance and eventual…

A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: "THAT SHIP HAS SAILED".

A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: “THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”.

July 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

One of the most imprudent things to do in litigation is to let a court order be made, not comply and then respond by arguing that the order should never have been made anyway.  We see an example of this…

THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AN ISSUE "DESTINED TO LIVE OUT ITS LITIGATION LIFE IN A LIMBO OF OBITER OBSERVATIONS"

THE AUTOMATIC STAY AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AN ISSUE “DESTINED TO LIVE OUT ITS LITIGATION LIFE IN A LIMBO OF OBITER OBSERVATIONS”

July 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of Mr Justice Foxton in Bank of America Europe DAC v CITTA Metropolitana Di Milano [2022] EWHC 1544 (Comm) serves of a salutary reminder (to some) of the existence of the automatic stay in civil proceedings.   A claimant…

NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT

NINE YEARS ON IX: 2022: EXPERTS, STRIDENT LANGUAGE AND THE DUTY OWED TO THE COURT

July 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In the final post of this series I have chosen a post from January 2022.  There are many common themes on this blog: relief from sanctions; service of the claim form; Part 36; witness statements, among them. However it is…

← Previous 1 … 48 49 50 … 145 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

  • CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2026: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2026
  • COST BITES 406: CAN A PARTY RECOVER UNNECESSARY COSTS AS DAMAGES? THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNNECESSARY SECOND ACTION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • THE WEBINAR ON THE SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION: WHAT LITIGATION FIRMS NEED TO KNOW: TOGETHER WITH LOTS OF CHECKLISTS AND TEMPLATESNOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
  • COST BITES 405: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT LEAD TO A DEDUCTION OF 45% OF THEIR COSTS? A TOOTH DECISION…
  • SHOULD THE COURT ALLOW A “NEWLY APPOINTED” EMPLOYEE TO REPRESENT A LIMITED COMPANY AT A HEARING?

Top Posts

NEW COURT FEES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 13th JULY 2026: SOME BRAND NEW PROVISIONS AND THE INFLATIONARY INCREASES: THE CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS, THE MAGISTRATES' COURT, THE LANDS CHAMBER (AND MANY OTHERS)
A NEW SERIES OF USEFUL ONLINE CALCULATORS FOR LITIGATORS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (WITH A 20% DISCOUNT FOR CLB READERS): MAKING IT ALL ADD UP
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: MAKING AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT: HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS: KEY POINTS AND SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS
COST BITES 404: JUDGE ORDERS DEFENDANT TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS: PARTIES HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO ENGAGE WITH THE PROCESS OF LITIGATION: "THEY SHOULD BE USING NON-COURT BASED DISPUTE RESOLUTION WHEREVER POSSIBLE"
THE COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS A JUDICIAL REVIEW DECISION IN FAVOUR OF A SOLICITOR: THE OMBUDSMAN GOT NOTHING WRONG (QUITE A LOT HERE ABOUT VULNERABLE CLIENTS AS WELL...)

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.