Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Appeals » Page 17
PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH

PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH

September 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come.   However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts.    This was not a case…

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: LINKS TO JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: LINKS TO JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY

September 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

The judgment and summary of the Supreme Court judgment today in Cherry -v- Advocate General for Scotland can be found here.     … Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium…

WHAT A DAY FOR BUNDLES - SUPREME COURT SHENANIGANS DOESN'T LEAD TO PANNICK: A RECAP OF AVAILABLE GUIDANCE

WHAT A DAY FOR BUNDLES – SUPREME COURT SHENANIGANS DOESN’T LEAD TO PANNICK: A RECAP OF AVAILABLE GUIDANCE

September 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Civil evidence, Members Content

Yesterday the Supreme Court was hearing two appeals in relation to the the prorogation of Parliament.  The line up of legal talent is immense.  However every single litigation lawyer watching could identify with the problems that the court was having…

PAYING EXPERT'S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND - GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS ...

PAYING EXPERT’S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND – GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS …

September 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment in the case of   Clegg v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2019] EWHC 2408. A solicitor was struck off, in circumstances  that could easily have been avoided.   It required the simple step of informing an expert that a trial had…

REDACTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO BE DISCOURAGED: THINGS COULD TURN OUT BADLY FOR THE REDACTOR

REDACTION OF RELEVANT DOCUMENTS TO BE DISCOURAGED: THINGS COULD TURN OUT BADLY FOR THE REDACTOR

September 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content

In  Nicoll v Promontoria (Ram 2) Ltd [2019] EWHC 2410 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann was critical of a decision to redact elements of documents disclosed in an application to set aside a statutory demand.   “unnecessary and inappropriate redactions are…

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - RE M - THE FULL JUDGMENT: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STRICT PROCEDURAL RULES ARE COMPLIED WITH

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – RE M – THE FULL JUDGMENT: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STRICT PROCEDURAL RULES ARE COMPLIED WITH

September 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Members Content

The case of Re M I wrote on earlier in the week is now available on BAILLI [2019] EWCA Civ 1559. The procedure adopted by the judge is subject to sustained criticism by the Court of Appeal. “the consequences of…

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

September 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content

The decision in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1504 related to a case where a decision was made when the judge was not given relevant papers that had arrived at court. “In…

AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL:  KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE - A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS

AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS

September 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

Appeals are always difficult.  The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test.  It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…

CIVIL CONTEMPT: THE KANGAROO COURTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM:  THE DANGERS OF NOT FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE

CIVIL CONTEMPT: THE KANGAROO COURTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE DANGERS OF NOT FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE

September 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In January this year I wrote “I am starting to lose count of the number of times the Court of Appeal has overturned decisions committing people to prison because of very basic and fundamental failures of procedure.  It is as…

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR PARTIES TO ARRIVE AT COURT: APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER CPR 39.3 ALLOWED

TRIAL JUDGE SHOULD HAVE WAITED FOR PARTIES TO ARRIVE AT COURT: APPEAL AGAINST ORDER UNDER CPR 39.3 ALLOWED

September 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Akita & Anor v Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland [2019] EWHC 1712 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer held that a trial judge, knowing that parties were on the way to court, should have waited longer before…

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan allowed an appeal as to costs in a issue relating to Part 36. She held that the trial judge had erred in making no…

THE COURT CAN ORDER PARTIES TO TAKE PART IN AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THE COURT CAN ORDER PARTIES TO TAKE PART IN AN EARLY NEUTRAL EVALUATION: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

August 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Christopher Buckingham for pointing out that the Court of Appeal decision in Lomax v Lomax [2019] EWCA Civ 1467 is now on BAILLI.  The Court of Appeal held that the consent of both parties was…

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT LITIGATORS KNOW HOW TO COMPUTE TIME PROPERLY:  7 DAYS MEANS 7 DAYS: APPLICATION TWO DAYS LATE: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

WHY IT IS IMPORTANT LITIGATORS KNOW HOW TO COMPUTE TIME PROPERLY: 7 DAYS MEANS 7 DAYS: APPLICATION TWO DAYS LATE: CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

August 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned a decision granting relief from sanctions. A major issue arose out of confusion by the claimant’s solicitors over the calculation of the time period. This…

PART 8 PROCEDURE USED FOR CLAIM FOR £2.6 MILLION: THE CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF - IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

PART 8 PROCEDURE USED FOR CLAIM FOR £2.6 MILLION: THE CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF – IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

August 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

A common practice has occurred of issuing Part 8 proceedings under the MOJ Protocol and “parking” cases there for an extended period.  This is an extremely dangerous practice.  It is even more dangerous if the case that has been parked…

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE'S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE "BUILDING BLOCKS" OF FACT FINDING

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE “BUILDING BLOCKS” OF FACT FINDING

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Attempts to appeal findings of fact are extremely common, so common that I have stopped writing about them.  There is also a common theme – the judge should not have found that, says the appellant: it was a finding open…

SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF A DECISION NOT TO PROVIDE COURT FEE REMISSION: GUIDANCE ON HOW TO APPEAL  REFUSAL TO GRANT REMISSION

SUCCESSFUL APPEAL OF A DECISION NOT TO PROVIDE COURT FEE REMISSION: GUIDANCE ON HOW TO APPEAL REFUSAL TO GRANT REMISSION

August 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Court fees, Members Content

I am grateful to solicitor Anthony McCarthy for sending me brief details of a successful appeal against a decision refusing remission of court fees.   Anthony states that successful appeals are very rare. ANTHONY’S NOTE ON THE APPEAL Fee was £10k…

NOT GIVING SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF WHEN A SOLICITOR FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT:  A PROBLEM BREAKING OUT ALL OVER

NOT GIVING SOURCES OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF WHEN A SOLICITOR FILES A WITNESS STATEMENT: A PROBLEM BREAKING OUT ALL OVER

August 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Summary judgment, Witness statements

 A post yesterday commented on the dangers of a solicitor (or indeed anyone) making a witness statement without giving the sources of their information and belief.  An identical issue arose in the judgment of Deputy Master Linwood in Islestarr Holdings…

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE AND HEARINGS IN "CHAMBERS": BAR COUNCIL GUIDANCE

RIGHTS OF AUDIENCE AND HEARINGS IN “CHAMBERS”: BAR COUNCIL GUIDANCE

August 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for referring me to the Bar Council publication “Acting as a Solicitor’s Agent”. This has a different view to those set out in earlier posts. It would be prudent for those involved in…

WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT "BE PREPARED": MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

WHEN YOU ARE CHALLENGING A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT “BE PREPARED”: MASTER FINDS THAT COURT COSTS OFFICERS DO HAVE JURISDICTION TO CONDUCT PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENTS: THE LIMITED SCOPE OF AN APPEAL FROM A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

July 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Leonard in PME -v- The Scout Association (30/07/2019).    1. JUDGMENT PME (003).  This deals with two issues (i) the jurisdiction of…

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME : THEY CAN BE A GOOD THING - BUT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME : THEY CAN BE A GOOD THING – BUT MUST BE DONE PROPERLY

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Cowan v Foreman & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1336 the Court of Appeal were far more supportive of the idea that parties in Inheritance Act claims could agree a “limitation amnesty”.  However an agreement has to be drafted with…

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of consent order made in the Court of Appeal.   The Court allowed an appeal, by consent, that the defendant to certain applications was only allowed fixed costs in an…

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE'S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

July 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable.  (The judgment also reviews the authorities…

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES - A MUST AT TRIAL - A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES...)

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES – A MUST AT TRIAL – A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES…)

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

  There was much excitement about the rules changes so that bundles for applications and trials should be double-sided.  However nothing is consistent in legal procedure. I am grateful to barrister Matt Jackson for sending me a (highly redacted) copy…

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content

In Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337 the Court of Appeal reviewed the principles relating to new matters being raised on appeal.     “These authorities show that there is no general rule that a case…

ANOTHER POST ON THE AUTHORITIES BUNDLE: THE SUPREME COURT SAY THEY SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: GUIDANCE FROM THE NICE LAWYERS OF TWITTER

July 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

Earlier today I reported on a comment from the Court of Appeal that it did not help for authorities to be placed in alphabetical order.  I commented on the absence of clear guidance.  Here we look at the views from…

A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

July 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

The Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing today in Swift -v- Carpenter.  Looking at the footage at 1.04 you can see a comment by the court in relation to the bundle of authorities.   THE BUNDLE WAS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER…

NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING  - NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING – NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

July 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 the Court of Appeal overturned an order that a mother pay counsel’s fees of certain hearings. The judgment is interesting in that costs were disallowed (inter partes) as unreasonable even when the…

PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

July 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In West -v- Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 the Court of Appeal considered the question of proportionality in relation to clinical negligence actions and the “recoverable” element of ATE insurance.  I am grateful to Sean Linley for…

PREPARE A NON-COMPLIANT BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES: THE RISKS OF COSTS BEING DISALLOWED: COURT OF APPEAL SOUNDS A WARNING

PREPARE A NON-COMPLIANT BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES: THE RISKS OF COSTS BEING DISALLOWED: COURT OF APPEAL SOUNDS A WARNING

July 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content

In  the judgment today in Parr v Keystone Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1246 Lord Justice Lewison expressed concerns about the failure to follow the Practice Direction on the citation of authorities.   THE CASE The Court of…

APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT'S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE

APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT’S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE

July 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

In Gray v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) Mr Justice Lambert dismissed the claimant’s appeal from cost budgeting decisions.    The judgment contains important observations about the nature of cost budgeting hearings and appeals on…

THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT

THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT

July 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is a judgment today on BAILLI in a family case. The case appears to be subject to reporting restrictions so I do not propose to link to it, or even name it, until these are clarified.  However what is…

PROPORTIONALITY: SHOULD HINDSIGHT BE A FACTOR? EXTRACTS FROM O'HARE AND BROWNE ON CIVIL LITIGATION (YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST...)

PROPORTIONALITY: SHOULD HINDSIGHT BE A FACTOR? EXTRACTS FROM O’HARE AND BROWNE ON CIVIL LITIGATION (YOU SAW IT HERE FIRST…)

July 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

I am grateful to John O’Hare for sending me an extract from the next edition of O’Hare and Browne on Civil Litigation (19th edition). It deals with proportionality and, in particular,  whether hindsight should be a factor in assessing proportionality. …

A SECOND - IDENTICAL - APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE

A SECOND – IDENTICAL – APPLICATION WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS AND DISMISSED ON THAT GROUND ALONE

July 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  Lambert v Forest of Dean District Council & Ors [2019] EWHC 1763 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen rejected an application on the grounds that it was an abuse of process. An identical application had been made earlier and struck out…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53A: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES: ALI -v-CHANNEL 5

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53A: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES: ALI -v-CHANNEL 5

July 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Relief from sanctions

Shortly after I completed the post on Part 36 offers after the costs budget has been confined to court fees Professor Dominic Regan reminded me that there is another example in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES

July 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…

"A BIT OF A SHORT BALL": STATING THE JUDGE'S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS

“A BIT OF A SHORT BALL”: STATING THE JUDGE’S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS

July 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

There is an interesting discussion as to Judicial bias in the judgment of Mrs Justice Theis in X v Y (Permission to Appeal) [2019] EWHC 1713 (Fam). “The interjections by the judge during the hearing should be viewed not as…

THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH

THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH

July 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In  Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) Mr Justice Henry Carr refused an appeal against the making of a “Bullock” order in relation to the costs of a fourth defendant.  The claimant, however, was not successful…

INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: REASONS FOR REFUSING PERMISSION NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE

INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: REASONS FOR REFUSING PERMISSION NOW AVAILABLE ON LINE

July 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

I wrote on the judgment in  I – interim payment of costs.  in an earlier post . I subsequently wrote that the defendant had been refused permission to appeal. The reasons are available on the Switalskis website, here. ” it seems entirely…

INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

June 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content, Personal Injury

I wrote on the judgment in  I – interim payment of costs.  in an earlier post.  An article on the Switalskis website today states that the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal.( I know that the…

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE SET ASIDE: THE DANGERS OF SEEKING TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF A CLAIM FORM ON A WITHOUT NOTICE BASIS - EXEMPLIFIED

EXTENSION OF TIME FOR SERVICE SET ASIDE: THE DANGERS OF SEEKING TO EXTEND THE LIFE OF A CLAIM FORM ON A WITHOUT NOTICE BASIS – EXEMPLIFIED

June 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors v DDM [2019] EWCA Civ 1103 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by defendants who objected to an extension of time being granted for service of the claim form.  It is an object…

CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL IN RECOVERING ADDITIONAL 10% IN DAMAGES WHEN OWN OFFER WAS BEATEN: THE ADDITIONAL AWARD SHOULD NOT BE CATEGORISED AS A "BONUS"

CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN APPEAL IN RECOVERING ADDITIONAL 10% IN DAMAGES WHEN OWN OFFER WAS BEATEN: THE ADDITIONAL AWARD SHOULD NOT BE CATEGORISED AS A “BONUS”

June 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In  JLE v Warrington & Halton Hospitals NHS Trust Foundation Trust [2019] EWHC 1582 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart overturned an order of the Master who declined to award the claimant an additional 10% in costs when they had beat their…

CLAIMANT LAWYERS: YOU MUST KNOW THE RULES RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: YOU CAN'T EXPECT THE DEFENDANT TO HELP YOU OUT

CLAIMANT LAWYERS: YOU MUST KNOW THE RULES RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: YOU CAN’T EXPECT THE DEFENDANT TO HELP YOU OUT

June 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

One guarantee for anyone writing about civil procedure is that there will be a regular supply of what Master McCloud has described as ” a dry and unlovely crop of procedural service issues”,  The Court of Appeal decision in Woodward…

APPEAL AGAINST DISPROPORTIONAL COSTS FAILS: REASONABLE TO USE LEADING COUNSEL IN A £25,000 CLAIM

APPEAL AGAINST DISPROPORTIONAL COSTS FAILS: REASONABLE TO USE LEADING COUNSEL IN A £25,000 CLAIM

June 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In East Sussex Fire And Rescue Service v Austin [2019] EWHC 1455 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert dismissed the defendant’s (paying party) appeal. The defendant argued that costs were disproportional, that the use of leading counsel was unreasonable  – as was…

ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A "SINGULARLY DIM VIEW" OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

June 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…

PROPORTIONALITY: A WARNING AGAINST A "CLIENT-CENTRIC" APPROACH: £74,000 REDUCED TO £15,000: HIGH COURT CASE ON APPEAL

PROPORTIONALITY: A WARNING AGAINST A “CLIENT-CENTRIC” APPROACH: £74,000 REDUCED TO £15,000: HIGH COURT CASE ON APPEAL

June 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In Malmsten v Bohinc [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith allowed a paying party’s appeal in an assessment and reduced a bill from £74,328.90 to £15,000.  There is a detailed consideration of how the proportionality test should be…

FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL - NOT A SEARCH FOR "THE TRUTH"

FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”

June 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…

MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS LIABLE TO COVER VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN OFF ROAD: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

MOTOR INSURERS BUREAU IS LIABLE TO COVER VEHICLE BEING DRIVEN OFF ROAD: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

June 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

NB THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE THE MOTOR INSURERS (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) ACT 2022 In Motor Insurers’ Bureau v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 the Court of Appeal upheld the finding of Mr Justice Soole that…

MASTER ENTITLED TO STRIKE OUT UNPARTICULARISED GROUNDS OF DISPUTE  IN SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT: BE PARTICULAR OR ELSE...

MASTER ENTITLED TO STRIKE OUT UNPARTICULARISED GROUNDS OF DISPUTE IN SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT: BE PARTICULAR OR ELSE…

June 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

In Ainsworth -v- Stewarts Law LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 897 HHJ Klein (sitting as a High Court judge) dismissed an appeal against an order dismissing a former client’s challenge to work done on documents. The Master held that the claimant’s…

THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE "HIRED GUN": THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE

THE EXPERT WITNESS AND THE “HIRED GUN”: THE FACT THAT EXPERTS WERE VERY EXPENSIVE (AND FEES WERE FIXED IN RETROSPECT) DID NOT MAKE THEM UNRELIABLE

June 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In O’Leary v Mercy University Hospital Cork Ltd [2019] IESC 48 the Supreme Court of Ireland made some telling observations on the role of the expert witness. Problems with experts are clearly not confined to one jurisdiction. OPENING OBSERVATIONS OF…

ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)

ASKING QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT: NOT TO BE USED IN AN ATTEMPT TO RE-OPEN THE CASE (OR ARGUE A DIFFERENT CASE ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS)

June 1, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am looking again at the decision in  O v B-M [2019] EWFC B23. That case predates the more recent Court of Appeal judgment in  Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898. However it is another example of a party attempting to use the…

← Previous 1 … 16 17 18 … 29 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.