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
CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION

CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION

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

In W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2640 the Court of Appeal made an important observation about the duty of a cross-examiner to put their client’s case to an opposing witness. This provides an opportunity…

CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING  LEADING QUESTIONS

CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS

November 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Litigants in person, Members Content

In Global Corporate Ltd v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618 the Court of Appeal emphasised the dangers of a judge asking  leading questions of a witness. It is a case that highlights the difficulties of trials involving litigants in person. THE…

COST BUDGETING: THE PARTIES MUST KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: LEAVING HOURLY RATES "OPEN" IS INAPPROPRIATE

COST BUDGETING: THE PARTIES MUST KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: LEAVING HOURLY RATES “OPEN” IS INAPPROPRIATE

November 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

I am grateful  Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp to for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Jacobs in Yirenki -v- Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 3102 (QB).  The judge allowed an appeal against a cost budgeting…

ANOTHER CASE OF SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM GOING AWRY: GO ON - DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

ANOTHER CASE OF SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM GOING AWRY: GO ON – DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

November 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

When lecturing at the Zenith Chambers personal injury course this Thursday I only offered one prediction for civil procedure: “I’ll be here next year talking about claim form cases reported over the previous 12 months where things have gone wrong.” …

ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: DENTON PRINCIPLES NOT ENGAGED IN FAILING TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND MEDICAL REPORT

ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: DENTON PRINCIPLES NOT ENGAGED IN FAILING TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND MEDICAL REPORT

November 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In the judgment today in  Mark v Universal Coatings & Services Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3206 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer allowed an appeal against an action being struck out.  The case has many procedural complexities.  Here we look at…

YOU CANNOT ARGUE A "NEW" CASE AT THE APPEAL STAGE: "RACING" DRIVERS NOT INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL JOINT ENTERPRISE: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT DAMAGES AWARDED

YOU CANNOT ARGUE A “NEW” CASE AT THE APPEAL STAGE: “RACING” DRIVERS NOT INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL JOINT ENTERPRISE: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT DAMAGES AWARDED

November 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

In Wallett & Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) Mr Justice Males overturned a decision in favour of the defendant and awarded damages to the estate of a deceased driver. The important procedural issue is that the defendant were not…

LIVE COURT OF APPEAL STREAMING - GIVES YOU A GRANDSTAND SEAT

LIVE COURT OF APPEAL STREAMING – GIVES YOU A GRANDSTAND SEAT

November 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Advocacy, Appeals, Members Content

The Court of Appeal pilot scheme for live streaming will start on Thursday, details are available on the Court and Tribunals Judiciary website. THE FIRST MATCH… The first case to be heard  with live streaming concerns West Ham United football…

COURT HAS NO POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS ON ACCOUNT AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION

COURT HAS NO POWER TO MAKE AN ORDER FOR COSTS ON ACCOUNT AFTER ACCEPTANCE OF A PART 36 OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION

November 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content, Part 36

NB THIS DECISION WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND EFFECTIVELY OVERRULED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN Global Assets Advisory Services Ltd & Anor v Grandlane Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1764. It was held that the court does have a…

RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT HEARING : NEVERTHELESS SURVIVES A COSTS ORDER ON APPEAL

RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT HEARING : NEVERTHELESS SURVIVES A COSTS ORDER ON APPEAL

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

In  Bhogal & Anor v Knight [2018] EWHC 2952 (Ch) the appellants failed in their appeal following an order that the respondent pay the costs of their initial application. The procedure described in the judgment is instructive.  It was yet another…

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 5:  IF YOU DON'T PAY COSTS BEFORE ISSUE IT COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE AFTERWARDS

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 5: IF YOU DON’T PAY COSTS BEFORE ISSUE IT COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE AFTERWARDS

November 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the High Court decision in Ayton -v- RSM Bentley Bennison & Ors [2018] EWHC 2851 (QB). It is one of those cases that illustrate…

PROVING THINGS 131: IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE COURT SHOULD NOT DRAW INFERENCES IN SOLICITOR'S COSTS CASE

PROVING THINGS 131: IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE COURT SHOULD NOT DRAW INFERENCES IN SOLICITOR’S COSTS CASE

October 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

The judgment in  Gill v Heer Manak Solicitors [2018] EWHC 2881 (QB) is one of those cases that will get costs lawyers excited.  However it is not so much a case about costs as a case about evidence, or the absence…

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT - AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT – AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

October 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Lord Justice Coulson used the judgment in Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403 to remind (some) litigators of  some key principles in relation to appeals on findings of fact.   He emphasised that the Technology…

"PUT BLUNTLY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE MISCONCEIVED": ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN A VERY ROBUST MOOD OVER COSTS

“PUT BLUNTLY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE MISCONCEIVED”: ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN A VERY ROBUST MOOD OVER COSTS

October 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Kay, R (On the Application Of) v Scan-Thors (UK) Ltd & Anor (Costs) [2018] EWHC 2842 (Admin) the Divisional Court dealt robustly with arguments made by an interested party attempting to resist an order for costs. “Put bluntly, these submissions…

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE "ACCEPTANCE" OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE “ACCEPTANCE” OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

October 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Part 36, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Sanctions, Serving documents, Striking out

In Devoy-Williams -v- High Cartwright & Amin [2018] EWHC 2815 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk upheld a decision that an action was struck out and that relief from sanctions should not be granted. It is a reminder (amongst other things)  of…

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR'S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE - THREE TIMES

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR’S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE – THREE TIMES

October 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation

In  Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2347 the Court of Appeal turned down the claimant’s appeal.  The claimant had been unsuccessful in an action for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. He was equally unsuccessful on appeal….

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): "LATE EVIDENCE" SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): “LATE EVIDENCE” SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE

October 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Witness statements

In the judgment today in The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) & Ors v CD [2018] EWCA Civ 2342 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a claimant being successful in a Section 33 application.  There is an…

MARMITE: SKELETON ARGUMENTS: "SO CALLED": ATTEMPTS TO APPEAL THE FACTS: A SPREAD OF ISSUES CONSIDERED

MARMITE: SKELETON ARGUMENTS: “SO CALLED”: ATTEMPTS TO APPEAL THE FACTS: A SPREAD OF ISSUES CONSIDERED

October 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day & Ors [2018] EWHC 2726 the Divisional Court rejected the SRA’s appeal against a decision of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. There are some interesting comments about the number of documents and the length of skeleton’s…

LIMITATION PERIODS AT SEA:  A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM THE SUPREME COURT: A WAKE UP CALL FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS -YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DIFFERING LIMITATION PERIODS

LIMITATION PERIODS AT SEA: A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM THE SUPREME COURT: A WAKE UP CALL FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS -YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DIFFERING LIMITATION PERIODS

October 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

This blog has, on many occasions, warned about the dangers posed by “different” limitation periods.  This danger can be seen in the decision of the Supreme Court today in  Warner v Scapa Flow Charters (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 52.  I must emphasise…

A CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: GOOD NEWS FOR CLAIMANTS: STAY A WHILE AND FIND OUT

A CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: GOOD NEWS FOR CLAIMANTS: STAY A WHILE AND FIND OUT

October 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In the judgment today in  Grant v Dawn Meats (UK) [2018] EWCA Civ 2212 the Court of Appeal held that an order staying an action also imposed a stay on the obligation to serve the claim form. The claim form was…

USING A SKELETON ARGUMENT TO TRY TO FILL GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE  THIS IS NOT GOING TO END WELL...

USING A SKELETON ARGUMENT TO TRY TO FILL GAPS IN THE EVIDENCE THIS IS NOT GOING TO END WELL…

October 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The judgment today in M&P Enterprises (London) Ltd v Norfolk Square (Northern Section) Ltd [2018] EWHC 2665 (Ch) makes interesting reading. The appeal concerned criticisms of the conduct of a trial by a circuit judge.  The main difficulty was that the…

PROVING THINGS 129: IMPATIENT PATIENT DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION: SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY

PROVING THINGS 129: IMPATIENT PATIENT DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION: SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY

October 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

The Supreme Court decision today in Darnley -v- Croydon Health Service NHS Trust [2018]UKSC 50 marks a development in the law of negligence, and also in relation to proving causation. “Far from constituting a break in the chain of causation,…

APPEALING A SECTION 33 DECISION - IS HARD TO DO: KIMATHI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

APPEALING A SECTION 33 DECISION – IS HARD TO DO: KIMATHI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

October 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In refusing permission to appeal in Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2018] EWCA Civ 2213 the Court of Appeal emphasised the difficulty involved in appealing a discretionary decision made under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. “The…

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…

← Previous 1 … 18 19 20 … 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

  • DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF A CARER IN A FATAL CASE: FULL COMMERCIAL RATE APPLIED TO CLAIM FOR FUTURE LOSS OF SERVICES
  • DO LAWYERS (AND EXPERTS) LIKE CHECKLISTS THAT ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES? WELL, I MAY HAVE A TREAT FOR YOU TOMOPRROW
  • SERVICE POINTS 45: A SOLICITOR FAILS TO CHECK THE CE FILE AND 5,000 CLAIMS GO UP IN SMOKE: SEVERAL IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE, INCLUDING THE NEED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF PROMPTLY…
  • WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A PARTY DOES NOT RESPOND TO A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS (THERE IS NO “DEEMED ADMISSION”) PLUS ANOTHER POSSIBLE “HALLUCINATED” “FICTITIOUS” RULE
  • RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: SOME DELAYS WERE UNEXPLAINED AND THERE WERE OTHER BREACHES OF THE RULES: SOME LESSONS ON COMPLIANCE HERE…

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.