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 21
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…

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

I used to write a section/chapter on limitation in a legal looseleaf.  The part on “date of knowledge” was, of course, my favourite*.  Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 has led to many cases in relation to date of…

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

February 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

An interesting point arose in the Court of Appeal decision today in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190.  When a party seeks permission to appeal from the trial judge – can the other party make submissions in…

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE "DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE “DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Costs, Members Content

The previous post looked at the Court of Appeal decision today in Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101.   A third element of that judgment was the defendant’s successful appeal against the costs of a committal application.   The Court held…

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

In Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101 today the Court of Appeal overturned a decision discussed on this blog in 2015.  The Court found that a judge should have granted a defendant an adjournment on ill-health grounds. He…

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT'S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT’S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content

Earlier this week I paid tribute to Sir Henry Brooke. This included his most recent work dealing with PIPs and ESAs.  He wrote in his blog: “Readers  of these blogs will know I have been telling stories of the injustices…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 the Court of Appeal upheld the early decisions that lawyers, who worked outside the terms of their retainer under a CFA, could not recover costs from the unsuccessful party….

STATUTORY INTEREST: THE AIM IS TO COMPENSATE NOT TO PUNISH

STATUTORY INTEREST: THE AIM IS TO COMPENSATE NOT TO PUNISH

February 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Interest, Members Content

In Carrasco v Johnson [2018] EWCA Civ 87 the Court of Appeal considered the appropriate rate for statutory interest. It reiterates important principles in relation to the court’s discretion in deciding the appropriate rate for the award of interest. “… interest…

ACCEPT A PART 36 OFFER LATE AND PAY THE CONSEQUENCES: LITIGATION CAN BE A HARSH WORLD

ACCEPT A PART 36 OFFER LATE AND PAY THE CONSEQUENCES: LITIGATION CAN BE A HARSH WORLD

February 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

I have been waiting for a while to see the transcript of the Court of Appeal decision in Briggs -v- CEF Holdings Ltd [2017] EWCA 2363 (Civ), some people have even written enquiring whether I have covered it. It is a…

DENTON APPLIED TO LATE APPEAL: SUBMITTING SUBMISSIONS AFTER A HEARING AND THE NEED FOR CAUTION WHEN SEEKING DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

DENTON APPLIED TO LATE APPEAL: SUBMITTING SUBMISSIONS AFTER A HEARING AND THE NEED FOR CAUTION WHEN SEEKING DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

February 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Fayad, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 54 the Court of Appeal applied the Denton principles to a late appeal.  Permission to appeal was refused. Mr Justice Singh had…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

January 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  London Organising Committee of the Olympic And Paralympic Games (LOCOG) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision whereby a claimant was allowed damages.  The claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in making a claim for…

WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)

WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)

January 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

The judgment in Premier Paper Group Ltd v Buchanan McPherson Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 15 contains some interesting observations about the way in which the parties departed from their pleadings.  Although the claim succeeded this case how important it is that…

LIMITATION: DISEMBARKATION AND THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD:  THE BARQUE AND THE BIGHT

LIMITATION: DISEMBARKATION AND THE TWO YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: THE BARQUE AND THE BIGHT

January 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Collins v Lawrence [2017] EWCA 2268 Civ Lord Justice Hamblen considered an issue under limitation and the Convention Relating to Carriage of Passengers and their Luggage by Sea (the “Athens Convention”). It serves as an important reminder that many cases…

THE BRIAN MAY COSTS CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE: PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL DID NOT BITE THE DUST

THE BRIAN MAY COSTS CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE: PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL DID NOT BITE THE DUST

January 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

Thanks to the good offices of the ACL the judgment on appeal of May -v- Wavell Group Ltd is now available here.  The claimant’s appeal on the issue of proportionality was allowed. The figure of £35,000 plus vat for costs…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL - THE FULL JUDGMENT

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL – THE FULL JUDGMENT

January 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) at the end of last year.  The full judgment is now available and is attached here 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment A SUMMARY The…

"SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH": FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

January 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (IV): COSTS, BUDGETS, PROCEDURAL GAMES AND MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (IV): COSTS, BUDGETS, PROCEDURAL GAMES AND MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT

December 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Case Management, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Review

This year has been a surprisingly muted year for costs cases, particularly in the higher courts.  Several judgments were expected, however they rarely proved to be definitive or wide ranging. 2018 may be the year that some issues are resolved….

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (I):  "SURVIVING THE EMOTIONS OF LITIGATION" & "THINGS THAT IRRITATE JUDGES"

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2017 (I): “SURVIVING THE EMOTIONS OF LITIGATION” & “THINGS THAT IRRITATE JUDGES”

December 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Review

This is the fourth annual review on this blog. This year I have decided to break it into a number of reviews.  First it is interesting to look at what is being read on this site and the search terms…

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL:

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL:

December 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

Exactly a year ago today His Honour Judge Robinson gave judgment in a case relating to under-payment  the Court fees , see Wiseman -v- Martson.  Judge Robinson gave judgment this morning in a case that covered similar ground. He allowed an…

THE COSTS OF PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THE CAP ALWAYS FITS

THE COSTS OF PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THE CAP ALWAYS FITS

December 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In  W Portsmouth and Company Ltd v Lowin [2017] EWCA Civ 2172 the Court of Appeal held that the cap on the costs of provisional assessment continues to apply even when a receiving party has beaten their own Part 36 offer…

COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL  - IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL – IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

December 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Setting aside judgment, Witness statements

The decision in Salekipour & Anor v Parmar [2017] EWCA Civ 2141 was made after three previous hearings a (including two appeal hearings) in the lower courts.  It was the only time the claimants were successful.  It involved an important procedural…

← Previous 1 … 20 21 22 … 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

  • AN OFFER TO SETTLE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR COSTS MAY WELL BE INEFFECTIVE: IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A PETITION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
  • IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL – MAKE SURE YOU ARE AVAILABLE…: JUDGE SAYS THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THIS ISSUE
  • COST BITES 398: MORE BUDGETING IN THE MERCEDES-BENZ LITIGATION: ONLY A “MODEST” REDUCTION OF £1 MILLION HERE: BUT WHY (THE COURT ASKS) WEREN’T REALISTICALLY REDUCED FIGURES PUT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: “AVOID BULLSHIT, SMOKE AND MIRRORS” (OH AND “WELL PADDED VANITY” (JUNE 2016
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

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.