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 20
PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL

PROVING THINGS 105: BURDEN ON CLAIMANT TO PROVE A DEFECT: THE DIFFICULT TASK OF APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT ON APPEAL

May 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Matthew Snarr for sending me a copy of the judgment, given yesterday, in Bond -v- Tom Croft (Bolton) Ltd [2018] EWHC 1290 QB.  It contains an important observation about the burden of proof in establishing that…

FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT'S APPEAL ALLOWED

FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED

May 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

The previous post dealt with a judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturning a judgment in favour of the claimant. The judgment in Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB)   is in similar terms.  Only on…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

May 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out

In January this year  I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment.Where HH Judge Robinson allowed an appeal where the District Judge had struck out a case…

PROVING THINGS 103: CAUSATION WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM A BALCONY:  A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS

PROVING THINGS 103: CAUSATION WHEN THE CLAIMANT TRIED TO ESCAPE FROM A BALCONY: A TALE OF TWO JUDGMENTS

May 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is an interesting consideration of causation in the Court of Appeal judgment  today in Clay v TUI UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1177.  This has the flavour of a case that may go further.   There is an interesting dissenting judgment…

PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: "A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY"

PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: “A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY”

May 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment  of Mr Justice Turner today in  Rashid v Munir & Ors [2018] EWHC 1258 (QB) illustrates the difficult task of the trial judge when all of the witnesses are strangers to the truth. “Attempting to establish the common but…

I'M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT - BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT'S CASE

I’M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT – BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT’S CASE

May 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

The judgment in Auckland v Khan & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1148  is in short form.  However it does illustrate the difficulties of appealing on “pleading points” and findings of fact. “There are certainly cases in which the failure to put…

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: BAD LEGAL ADVICE NOT A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW SERVICE BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: BAD LEGAL ADVICE NOT A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW SERVICE BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD

May 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat AS & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1093 the Court of Appeal considered a claimant’s appeal where the judge had refused to allow an alternative method of service or to dispense with service….

PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW

PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW

May 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents.  This is what happened…

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

There are many matters of interest in the short judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Watkins, R (On the Application Of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court [2018] EWHC 1029, a rare example of a party trying to judicially review a…

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER:  PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT'S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER: PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

April 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Wall v Munday [2018] EWHC 879 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) allowed an appeal in relation to costs.  The judge at first instance had ordered the claimant to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs. That…

NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT

NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT

April 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

In an earlier post about the case of P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 we looked at an example where the parties (all the parties in the case) had correctly used the guidance in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002]…

LEAVE TO APPEAL, APPEAL NOTICES AND THE NEED TO APPLY TO AMEND: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS CRUCIAL: KNOW THE RULES

April 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851 the Court of Appeal set out, in categorical terms, that parties should comply with the provisions relating to permission to appeal. In particular a party cannot…

UNREASONABLE FAILURE TO USE PROTOCOL WILL LEAD TO FIXED COSTS BEING AWARDED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: CPR 44 RULES THE DAY

UNREASONABLE FAILURE TO USE PROTOCOL WILL LEAD TO FIXED COSTS BEING AWARDED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: CPR 44 RULES THE DAY

April 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

In Williams v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of the personal injury protocol and fixed costs.  It was held that CPR 44 has sufficient width…

THE SECRET BARRISTER: YOU'VE READ THE BOOK NOW GET THE (SIGNED) T-SHIRT: AUCTION FOR CHARITY

THE SECRET BARRISTER: YOU’VE READ THE BOOK NOW GET THE (SIGNED) T-SHIRT: AUCTION FOR CHARITY

April 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Contest, Charity,, Members Content

It is rare for a book about law to hit the best seller lists.  It is even rarer for a law book to have merchandising. The Secret Barrister’s book, however, has produced a limited number of T-Shirts.  To raise money…

LIEN, THE SOLICITOR AND THE INSURER: NO SAFE HAVEN FOR DEFENDANTS

LIEN, THE SOLICITOR AND THE INSURER: NO SAFE HAVEN FOR DEFENDANTS

April 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Appeals, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of the Supreme Court this morning in Gavin Edmondson Solicitors Ltd v Haven Insurance Company Ltd [2018] UKSC 21. It confirms that solicitors are entitled to costs in cases where the defendant’s insurer, knowing of the solicitor’s involvement,  settled…

WHEN THE LIMITATION ACT IS NOT YOUR BEST FRIEND: "SHEER  INCOMPETENCE" DOES NOT PERSUADE A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION

WHEN THE LIMITATION ACT IS NOT YOUR BEST FRIEND: “SHEER INCOMPETENCE” DOES NOT PERSUADE A COURT TO EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION

April 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Striking out

CPR 17.(4) is always one of the most “challenging” sections of the Limitation Act in practice. Amending the name of a party after the expiry of the limitation period is not always easy.  The judgment in Best Friends Group & Anor…

PROVING THINGS 89: AN APPROACH THAT IS JUST DANGEROUS: ABDICATION OF THE LAWYER'S ROLE TO AN EXPERT

PROVING THINGS 89: AN APPROACH THAT IS JUST DANGEROUS: ABDICATION OF THE LAWYER’S ROLE TO AN EXPERT

April 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Credibility of experts, Damages, Experts, Members Content

This is the third post today on Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB). The case demonstrates an approach to a claim for damages that is simply dangerous: asserting a claim for damages where there is no  adequate evidence…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE

April 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Members Content, Schedules, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

If there is anything that suffers from being taken for granted it is the basic schedule and counter-schedule. This is demonstrated in the judgment available today in Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip. The appeal…

DEFENDANT FAILS TO OBTAIN FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: DEFENDANT'S APPEAL DISMISSED:  A BADLY THOUGHT OUT AND POORLY DRAFTED SCHEDULE

DEFENDANT FAILS TO OBTAIN FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL DISMISSED: A BADLY THOUGHT OUT AND POORLY DRAFTED SCHEDULE

April 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

In Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip refused the defendant’s appeal in a case where it was argued that the trial judge should have made a finding of fundamental dishonesty.  The claimant had not…

WHEN FACT FINDING GOES WRONG: APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL WHEN THERE ARE DELAYS BY THE JUDGE

WHEN FACT FINDING GOES WRONG: APPEALS TO THE COURT OF APPEAL WHEN THERE ARE DELAYS BY THE JUDGE

April 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I am going to leave it to the family law bloggers to analyse all the implications of the judgment in P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720. It involves all parties in a case agreeing that the fact finding process at…

YOU APPEAL DECISIONS NOT REASONS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED IN RELATION TO AN ARGUMENT THAT DID NOT CHANGE OUTCOME OF THE CASE

YOU APPEAL DECISIONS NOT REASONS: PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED IN RELATION TO AN ARGUMENT THAT DID NOT CHANGE OUTCOME OF THE CASE

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

In  Civilians v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 690 (QB) Mr Justice Leggatt  rejected the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. The proposed appeal was wholly academic in the sense that it had no impact on the outcome of the case. THE…

APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY: IF YOU WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT THEN MAKE SURE YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR IT

APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF A SERIOUS PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY: IF YOU WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT THEN MAKE SURE YOU HAVE APPLIED FOR IT

March 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment

On the 18th April 2018 I am,  with a number of my colleagues from Hardwicke, giving a talk on “Applications for Defendants”*.  The judgment this week in St Clair v King & Anor [2018] EWHC 682 (Ch) may well feature.   It…

A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC

A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC

March 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Judgment, Members Content

In Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 227 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser made it clear that draft judgments were not to be taken as an invitation to the parties to embark on a second round of submissions….

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: "JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS"

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: “JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS”

March 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Litigants in person, Members Content

In EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch)  HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) carried out a comprehensive review of the authorities relating to the latitude to be afforded to litigants in person. It…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AT THE "OLD ADDRESS": THE HIERARCHY OF MEASURES A CLAIMANT HAS TO TAKE

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AT THE “OLD ADDRESS”: THE HIERARCHY OF MEASURES A CLAIMANT HAS TO TAKE

March 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

A search term arrived on this blog today “Service of claim form at old address”.  This is an interesting issue to look at following the earlier posts on service. In particular the hierarchy of measures a claimant is required to…

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE:  PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF  CONDUCT AND COSTS

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE: PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONDUCT AND COSTS

March 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 613 illustrates two distinct issues: The position when a judge is unable to make a finding on the evidence. What conduct can lead to a successful…

OVER-LISTING HAS CONSEQUENCES : (SO DOES TALKING OVER YOUR OPPONENT): HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BECOME A "SHOUTING MATCH"

OVER-LISTING HAS CONSEQUENCES : (SO DOES TALKING OVER YOUR OPPONENT): HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BECOME A “SHOUTING MATCH”

March 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is a page on this blog where I am attempting to collate problems with listing (across all jurisdictions).  The judgment reported today in  A v R & Anor (Appeal of Summary Determination) [2018] EWHC 521 provides a reminder that listing…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A  DUTY ON A DEFENDANT'S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A DUTY ON A DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

March 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It was unlikely that the decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 would put an end to all issues relating to service of the claim form.  There is a tantalising judgment* of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare…

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS' APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

March 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Sean Linley of PIC costings for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgement in Surrey -v- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 451.  This is the latest in the…

LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE CLAIMANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE CLAIMANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In the judgment today in Springer v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 436 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that refused to give relief from sanctions following late service of notice of funding.  The case shows…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Written advocacy

The Administrative Court Clerks Users Group has sent out an email to many chambers in relation to the format of skeleton arguments.  If you did not receive this it is worth reading. THE EMAIL: SIZE AND FONTS OF SKELETON ARGUMENTS…

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber in Clarke v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2018] UKFTT 123 (TC). Here we look at two particular parts of the judgment: (i) the relevance of reliance on an…

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 7: HOW TO WIN YOUR CASE: GUIDANCE FROM SCOTLAND

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 7: HOW TO WIN YOUR CASE: GUIDANCE FROM SCOTLAND

March 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

This series looks at guidance on advocacy given by judges.  We have looked at advice given from judges around the globe. Today we go to Scotland. The Lord President’s address to the Faculty of Advocates in an event to mark…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON: SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW AS EVERYBODY ELSE (BUT CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT)

March 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Litigants in person, Members Content

The judgment in  Reynard v Fox [2018] EWHC 443 (Ch) has already been written about in the legal press.  Indeed it bristles with procedural issues, I want to concentrate on the issue of the treatment of litigants in person.   THE…

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

March 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

A post in 2015 looked at the decision in In Christofi -v- National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB) Mrs Justice Andrews DBE held that there were very limited grounds for extending time in an appeal against the registration of…

LITIGATORS - MISSED A DEADLINE? DON'T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

LITIGATORS – MISSED A DEADLINE? DON’T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

March 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Jackson, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision in Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 may well be Jackson L.J’s last judgment (certainly as a full time judge). It concerned the conduct of solicitors. I want to look at one aspect…

SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE

SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE

March 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements, Written advocacy

It is well known that Sir Rupert Jackson retires on the 7th March.  There are several reviews of the work Sir Rupert has done in re-shaping civil procedure.  Here I want to look at a few of his judgments that…

COSTS ON APPEAL - TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

COSTS ON APPEAL – TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

March 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

An earlier post dealt with the substantive decision in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017).   A short supplementary judgment dealt with two issues as to costs. KEY POINTS The fact that a party did not have a…

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN?  HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN? HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

February 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36

In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered the impact of a Part 36 offer that had been withdrawn. He overturned an order that the claimant should pay the costs from the date…

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Another week, another case about service of the claim form. This time the claimant was more successful. In DDM v Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors [2018] EWHC 346 (QB). Mr Justice Foskett allowed an appeal against a Master’s decision setting aside…

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

February 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270 the Court of Appeal considered an important issue in relation to Qualified One Costs Shifting. What order should be made when the claimant has QOCS protection against some of…

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

We looked at the decision in  Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16) in an earlier post.  The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal  Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018]…

12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW

12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Today is all about service of the claim form. Following on from the Supreme Court decision in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12  this morning this is a good time to update your knowledge about basic points of procedure. TWELVE…

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It is rare for issues relating to procedure to reach the Supreme Court. The judgment today in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned the issue of correct service of the claim form.  The claimant lost the appeal (albeit…

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal in Barton -v- Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12.  Service by email on a solicitor who had not confirmed they would accept service was not good service. A claimant would not be granted any…

EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE'S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS

EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE’S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS

February 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content

I am trespassing into the area of family law to look at decision of Mr Justice Moor in Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam). It is of general interest to civil lawyers because it involves the court considering whether expert…

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

February 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In  Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert found that the six year contractual limitation period ran from the date of completion of work and not the date of invoice.   A…

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

The case of Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210 is one that needs to be read with great care.  A defendant who made a voluntary interim payment after making a Part 36 offer. The effect of this was…

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

We are looking again at the decision in  Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190     This was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act since the decision in Carroll v Chief…

THE COURT "REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED" EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THE COURT “REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED” EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Proportionality

In Ogale Community & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 191 the Court of Appeal made observations about the need to keep applications about jurisdiction in proportion.  “… hearings concerning the issue of appropriate forum should…

← Previous 1 … 19 20 21 … 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

  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYED? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A “NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE” (APRIL 2018)

Top Posts

  • COST (MEGA) BITES 378: WHO WOULD SPEND £15,751,483 PLUS VAT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OF £16.91? (WELCOME TO THE SURREAL WORLD OF "COLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS": THE CAT ARE CONCERNED THAT LITIGATION IS BEING BROUGHT FOR THE LAWYERS & FUNDERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS
  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS - BUT... : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON...
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 2: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PD57AC: "HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS"

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.