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 19
RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED WHEN RESPONDENT'S NOTICE SERVED LATE: DENTON CONSIDERED

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED WHEN RESPONDENT’S NOTICE SERVED LATE: DENTON CONSIDERED

October 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Livewest Homes Ltd v Bamber [2018] EWHC 2454 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans considered the issue of relief from sanctions when a Respondent’s Notice was served late. It is a useful reminder of the importance of serving a respondent’s notice and…

SECOND ACTION NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: CLAIM IN DECEIT CAN CONTINUE AFTER CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE FAILED: THE CLAIMANT NEED NOT HAVE GAMBLED ON FRAUD CLAIM FIRST TIME AROUND

SECOND ACTION NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: CLAIM IN DECEIT CAN CONTINUE AFTER CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE FAILED: THE CLAIMANT NEED NOT HAVE GAMBLED ON FRAUD CLAIM FIRST TIME AROUND

September 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Second set of proceedings

In Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa [2018] EWCA Civ 2025 the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that an action in deceit was an abuse of process. The claimant’s action in negligence failed because there was…

DENTON PRINCIPLES MEANS THAT APPEAL BITES THE DUST: CONFUSION AND BEING "LOST IN THE FOREST" ARE NOT GOOD GROUNDS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

DENTON PRINCIPLES MEANS THAT APPEAL BITES THE DUST: CONFUSION AND BEING “LOST IN THE FOREST” ARE NOT GOOD GROUNDS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

September 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles are considered in detail in the judgment of Edward Murray (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Sabesan v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2018] EWHC 2373 (Admin).   The judgment confirms that the Denton principles are applicable to…

IF YOU WANT A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER YOU NEED TO "SHOUT" OUT IN ADVANCE: "YOU NEVER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY..."

IF YOU WANT A NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER YOU NEED TO “SHOUT” OUT IN ADVANCE: “YOU NEVER GIVE ME YOUR MONEY…”

September 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Sony/ATV Music Publishing LLC & Anor v WPMC Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 2005 the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that a director of a company should pay pay a company’s costs.  The absence of warning was a…

SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, CPR 6.15 AND IS THE ISSUE OF A "SECOND ACTION" AN ABUSE OF PROCESS?

SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, CPR 6.15 AND IS THE ISSUE OF A “SECOND ACTION” AN ABUSE OF PROCESS?

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

I am grateful to Anthony Okuma of Duncan Lewis solicitors  to for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Richard Roberts in Sajid -v- Nuur (Central London County court 30/7/18).  This covers two separate issues. Firstly a claimant’s…

AN EXPERT'S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

AN EXPERT’S IMPARTIALITY CAN ONLY BE STRETCHED SO FAR: THE COURTS HAVE SAID THIS TYNE AND TYNE AGAIN

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Charles Holland for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Meek in Endless Stretch -v- Newcastle County Council. A copy can be found in the link on this page.    This case is…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE

August 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Written advocacy

We are looking, for the second time, at the Court of Appeal decision yesterday in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. That part of the judgment that deals with findings of fact  at trial and appeals against…

DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY:  COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN

DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN

August 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to barrister  Luka Krsljanin for sending me a copy of hte Court of Appeal decision today in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. The Court rejected an argument that the trial judge…

THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" CONSIDERED: WHEN NON-AUTHORISED PERSONS ATTEMPT TO ELBOW IN ON LITIGATION

THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” CONSIDERED: WHEN NON-AUTHORISED PERSONS ATTEMPT TO ELBOW IN ON LITIGATION

August 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are looking for the third (and final) time at the judgment in  Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel). The judge considered the meaning of “conduct of litigation” as defined by the Legal Services Act…

WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT

WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT

August 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

I am looking again at the judgment in  Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel).  Here we look at the crucial question of who signed the statement of truth. A difficult concept when a claim form…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: A ROUND UP: GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING: JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS (& THERE ARE PLENTY): EXAMPLES ONLINE & SANCTIONS FOR LATE SERVICE

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: A ROUND UP: GUIDANCE ON DRAFTING: JUDICIAL COMPLAINTS (& THERE ARE PLENTY): EXAMPLES ONLINE & SANCTIONS FOR LATE SERVICE

August 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

Recent online discussions about skeleton arguments started with a search term that led to this blog “how long should a skeleton argument be?”  This was probably a good time to provide a review highlighting all the posts about skeleton arguments…

DON'T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT

DON’T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT

August 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

There is another aspect of the judgment in Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward & Anor [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch) that needs highlighting. The lesson here is clear:  you cannot delay service of the claim form on the grounds that you…

APPEAL ON FINDING OF FACT ALLOWED: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN THE CREDIT HIRE WAR

APPEAL ON FINDING OF FACT ALLOWED: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN THE CREDIT HIRE WAR

August 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Members Content

I am grateful to Lee Kipling from Winns, solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of HH Judge Gosnell in Morris -v- MCE Insurance Company Ltd.( Morris v MCE Insurance (23.07.18) (Jud) (2)). A case where the judge allowed…

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

August 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert.  The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…

LAWYERS (& OTHERS) - WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN

LAWYERS (& OTHERS) – WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN

August 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Litigation Privilege,, Members Content

In the judgment today in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email  marked “Legally Privileged and Confidential” did not have the protection of professional privilege.  The judgment also shows…

RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS

RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS

August 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Damages, Default judgment,, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 is in relation to procedure in the Employment Tribunal.  However there are two points in the judgment that are of general importance to civil practitioners. …

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO "MIXED CLAIMS": THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO “MIXED CLAIMS”: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018] EWHC 2046 (Admin) Mrs Justice Whipple held that a claim against the police for misuse of data, misfeasance in public office and misuse of private information, did not give rise…

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Hertel & Anor v Saunders & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an offer made was not a valid Part 36 offer.  It was held that a Part 36 offer had to be…

FIXED COSTS CONTINUE WHEN DEFENDANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

FIXED COSTS CONTINUE WHEN DEFENDANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

July 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe, solicitor, at Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment today in Hislop -v- Perde [2018] EWCA Civ 1726. KEY POINTS The Court of Appeal held that, in…

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE...

WHEN LITIGATION LAWYERS SPLIT UP: THE FALL OUT CONTINUES: A SPLIT TRIAL WAS FAR FROM WISE…

July 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  FPH Law (a firm) v Brown (t/a Integrum Law) [2018] EWCA Civ 1629 the Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal against a finding on a preliminary issue. There was a potential cause of action between two firms of solicitors…

PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE "FALL BACK" POSITION

PROVING THINGS 120: PROVING DAMAGES: THE DANGERS OF NOT HAVING A CREDIBLE “FALL BACK” POSITION

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Experts, Members Content

In  Moore & Anor v National Westminster Bank [2018] EWHC 1805 (TCC) Mr Justice Birss dismissed an appeal by the defendant against an award of £115,000 in damages.  It is a case about the appropriate assessment of damages when the defendant…

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Gary Brankin and Jeremy Rae  of BC Legal for providing more information about the decision in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, the court of Appeal decision on QOCS considered yesterday.  This is a point on…

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS "SUCCESSFUL" DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

July 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Risks of litigation

In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting.   The case provides…

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION,  SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE - THIS IS THE CPR

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: LIMITATION, SECTION 33 AND DENTON: CARDS ON THE TABLE PLEASE – THIS IS THE CPR

July 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment, Skeleton arguments, Written advocacy

In TPE v Franks [2018] EWHC 1765 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles set aside a default judgment.  The case contains some important observations as to how the courts should consider an application to set aside a default judgment – considering…

BREACHING THE RULES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND THE CORRECT JUDGE TO HEAR THE APPEAL

BREACHING THE RULES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PERMISSION TO APPEAL AND THE CORRECT JUDGE TO HEAR THE APPEAL

July 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

There is much for the litigator to ponder in the Court of Appeal judgment in Broughal v Walsh Brothers Builders Ltd & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1610. Firstly how did the claimant come to be in a position when it breached…

HOURLY RATES AND COMPLEX CASES: MASTER MAY HAVE APPLIED THE WRONG TEST BUT CAME TO THE RIGHT RESULT

HOURLY RATES AND COMPLEX CASES: MASTER MAY HAVE APPLIED THE WRONG TEST BUT CAME TO THE RIGHT RESULT

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In JXA v Kettering General Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1747 (QB) Mr Justice Goss rejected an appeal in relation to hourly rates of the claimant’s solicitor in a high value clinical negligence case. THE CASE The claimant had been…

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HOWEVER DESPITE THIS AN ACTION WAS ISSUED WITHIN TIME & WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT

July 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Limitation, Members Content, Sanctions

In the judgment today in  Atha & Co Solicitors v Liddle [2018] EWHC 1751 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of whether a failure to pay the correct fee on the issue of proceedings meant that a claim was…

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS "MALICIOUS": PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

July 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…

"CHANGE IN THE LAW" JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

“CHANGE IN THE LAW” JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the Court of Appeal in QR (Pakistan), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413.   The fact that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme…

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Hugh Cartwright & Amin v Devoy-Williams & Anor [2018] EWHC 1692 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies MBE (sitting with an assessor) overturned a decision of a Master where counsel’s brief fee was reduced because the matter had settled the afternoon…

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Proportionality

In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered.   “It would be quite wrong…

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT?  RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A "MEDICAL REPORT" WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

WHEN IS A REPORT NOT A MEDICAL REPORT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A “MEDICAL REPORT” WITH THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In a judgment given today at Leeds County Court His Honour Judge Gosnell held that a claimant, seeking damages for industrial deafness, breached the rules when issuing by not serving a medical report but serving an “AMR” report.  The judge,…

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS - BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS – BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

In Drury v Rafique & Anor [2018] EWHC 1527 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss gave important guidance to those thinking of appealing a judgment on the basis of inadequate reasons. It is dangerous for an appellant to appeal on this grounds without…

FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON'T SEEM TO MATTER...

FIFTH BIRTHDAY REVIEW 10: THE PROVING THING SERIES: SIZE DON’T SEEM TO MATTER…

June 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

This is the last in the series looking back at  key series of posts on this blog over the past five years.  Keen observers will note that most series last for about 10 posts. When the “Proving Thing” series started…

PART 36: COURT OF APPEAL SETS ASIDE ORDER THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD PAY COSTS FROM EARLIER DATE FOLLOWING LATE ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER

PART 36: COURT OF APPEAL SETS ASIDE ORDER THAT CLAIMANT SHOULD PAY COSTS FROM EARLIER DATE FOLLOWING LATE ACCEPTANCE OF AN OFFER

June 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In the decision today in Tuson v Murphy [2018] EWCA Civ 1461 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against an order that a claimant accepting a Part 36 offer late should pay costs from a much earlier date than that…

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER'S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER’S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

June 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

Yesterday I gave a short summary of the decision in Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. This is a case worth looking at in detail.   The substantive case settled for £50,000 shortly after issue. The question of…

LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND  DEFENCE RIGHTFULLY REFUSED: LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL ALSO GOT THE BARNSLEY CHOP

LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND DEFENCE RIGHTFULLY REFUSED: LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL ALSO GOT THE BARNSLEY CHOP

June 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Members Content, Statements of Case

In First Tower Trustees Ltd & Anor v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the trial judge to refuse a late amendment to the defence.  An application to amend the Notice…

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1376 the Court of Appeal held that a Conditional Fee Agreement was valid even though it named the wrong defendant.  The judgment contains important observations on how conditional fee agreements should…

ORDER FOR COSTS TO BE ASSESSED DOES NOT OUST FIXED COSTS: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION

ORDER FOR COSTS TO BE ASSESSED DOES NOT OUST FIXED COSTS: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION

June 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe of Taylor-Rose  for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Yelton in Bratek -v-Clark-Drain Limited (County Court at Cambridge 30th April 2018). A copy is available here Bratek v Clark-Drain Ltd…

WITNESS DEMEANOUR: NOT THAT IMPORTANT (INDEED PROBABLY UNIMPORTANT): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

WITNESS DEMEANOUR: NOT THAT IMPORTANT (INDEED PROBABLY UNIMPORTANT): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to Laurie Anstis for drawing my attention to the decision of the Court of Appeal decision in SS (Sri Lanka), R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391….

INSURANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDSTERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

INSURANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDSTERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

June 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Default judgment,, Members Content

In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 the Court of Appeal held that an insurance company was entitled to exemplary damages against parties who had attempted to defraud it. “the present case…

AVOIDING THE TERMS OF A CONSENT ORDER: A CASE THAT HAS A LOT OF LESSONS FOR SOLICITORS: WHY A CONSENT ORDER MAY NOT BE WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON

AVOIDING THE TERMS OF A CONSENT ORDER: A CASE THAT HAS A LOT OF LESSONS FOR SOLICITORS: WHY A CONSENT ORDER MAY NOT BE WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON

June 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The judgment in  Riordan & Ors v Moon Beevor Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) gives an interesting insight into the fallout from litigation – where the disgruntled client blames the solicitors.   There are important lessons here about the drafting…

COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO COSTS TO AWARD WHEN CLAIMANTS UNREASONABLY EXIT THE PORTAL: CPR 36.20 IS NOT DECISIVE

COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO COSTS TO AWARD WHEN CLAIMANTS UNREASONABLY EXIT THE PORTAL: CPR 36.20 IS NOT DECISIVE

June 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to solicitor Matthew Hoe of Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the transcript in Ansell & Evans -v- A.T & T (GB) Holdings Ltd (County Court at Oxford 14/12/2017 HHJ Clarke).  A copy is…

THE DANGER (FOR CLAIMANTS) OF LEAVING PART 36 OFFERS OPEN: CLAIM £125,000, GET £950

THE DANGER (FOR CLAIMANTS) OF LEAVING PART 36 OFFERS OPEN: CLAIM £125,000, GET £950

June 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36

It is worthwhile for every litigator (and insurer) to take a quick read of the report on Hogg -v- Newton (Teeside County Court 18th May 2018) which is reported on DAC Beachroft’s website.*  It shows the importance,  to a claimant…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED

June 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence.  It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…

APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS: A WORLD OF THEIR OWN: NOT QUITE CPR 39.(3) - BUT VERY CLOSE

APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS: A WORLD OF THEIR OWN: NOT QUITE CPR 39.(3) – BUT VERY CLOSE

June 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Setting aside judgment, Summary judgment

A party seeking to set aside an order for summary judgment has to deal with principles that are almost unique.  This was emphasised in the judgment of Miss Penelpe Reed QC  in Phonographic Performance Ltd v Balgun (t/a Mama Africa) [2018]…

THIS IS NOT A "PLEADING POINT": WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

In  Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of  the list of issues.  This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…

DEFENDANT NOT ENTITLED TO INDEMNITY COSTS IF PART 36 OFFER NOT BEATEN: SUCCESS ON COSTS APPEAL HAS MINUSCULE IMPACT ON OVERALL COSTS OF APPEAL

June 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Shalaby v London North West Healthcare NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1323 the Court of Appeal upheld the principle that a defendant is not entitled to indemnity costs simply because a claimant has not beaten a Part 36 offer.  It…

PROVING THINGS 111: CAUSATION IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES WHERE THERE IS A FAILURE TO WARN: BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE CLAIMANT

PROVING THINGS 111: CAUSATION IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES WHERE THERE IS A FAILURE TO WARN: BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS ON THE CLAIMANT

June 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Duce v Worcestershire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1307 deals with a number of matters.  Here I want to look at the question of proving causation in a case where the…

PROVING THINGS 110:  ASSESSING DAMAGES: "BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES": PROVING  AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

PROVING THINGS 110: ASSESSING DAMAGES: “BEGIN WITH FIRST PRINCIPLES”: PROVING AND ASSESSING LOSS IN A CLAIM FOR PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE

June 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Professional negligence,

In Edwards v Hugh James Ford Simey (a firm) [2018] EWCA Civ 1299 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that the claimant had not established causation for damages  in a professional negligence action. When assessing damages the court should begin…

← Previous 1 … 18 19 20 … 28 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 5: PD57AC AND REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS: WHY LAWYERS NEED TO BE PRISED AWAY FROM THEIR COMFORT BLANKETS
  • THE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF TIME FOR APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE COURT DID NOT HAVE POWER AT THIS STAGE IN ANY EVENT
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH – AND BY THE WAY – AS IT TURNS OUT – THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH - AND BY THE WAY - AS IT TURNS OUT - THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED...
  • OPENING LINES TO START THE WEEK: "FOR CENTURIES, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNISED THAT HUMAN HEARING CAN BE DAMAGED BY EXPOSURE TO LOUD NOISE"
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST...
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED

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.