Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Applications » Page 14
INSURER FAILS IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT HAD EARLIER MADE FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: MANY TROUBLING THINGS HERE

INSURER FAILS IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS AFTER A COURT HAD EARLIER MADE FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY TO THE CRIMINAL STANDARD: MANY TROUBLING THINGS HERE

January 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Conduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Aviva Insurance Ltd v Nadeem & Anor [2024] EWHC 3445 (KB) HHJ Tindal (sitting as  Judge of the High Court) dismissed an action for committal against someone who had been found to be fundamentally dishonest at a personal injury…

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard struck out large parts of a defendant’s Points of Dispute.  The Points of Dispute were inadequately particularised. The judgment contains an…

COST BITES 210: INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: THE CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FINAL BILL: "SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES" CONSIDERED

COST BITES 210: INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTE BILLS: THE CLIENT HAS THE RIGHT TO AN ASSESSMENT OF THE FINAL BILL: “SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES” CONSIDERED

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Thomas Mason for drawing my attention to the judgment of  Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker in  Topalsson GmbH v CMS Cameron McKenna Nabarro Olswang LLP [2025] EWHC 118 (SCCO). The judge determined that a series of…

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR'S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY'S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR’S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY’S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

January 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  AKS v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2025] EWHC 126 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard recounted an extraordinary set of facts where a solicitor had wrongly deducted sums from their client’s damages.  The judgment shows that this issue…

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW XIV: "RAMBO TACTICS" DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE...)

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIV: “RAMBO TACTICS” DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE…)

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Useful links

Continuing with revisiting guidance from judges in relation to advocacy. Here I advocate (hopefully in a civil way) learning from one judgment.  That is the judgment of District Judge Chin in the  extraordinary case of Revson -v- Cinque & Cinque in…

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL: "THE NEED TO PROMOTE THE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IN ALL CASES"

TERMS OF SETTLEMENT WITH OTHER CLAIMANTS INADMISSIBLE AT TRIAL: “THE NEED TO PROMOTE THE POLICY TO ENCOURAGE SETTLEMENT IN ALL CASES”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

In  Omanovic v Shamaazi Ltd & Anor [2025] EWHC 110 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer granted the defendants’ application that the terms of settlement with two claimants were inadmissible in the trial of the remaining claimant.  On the facts of…

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

COST BITES 209: A CLIENT’S CHALLENGE TO THE DEDUCTION OF THEIR OWN SOLICITOR’S COSTS WAS THIS A CFA OR A DBA: WAS THE SOLICITOR OBLIGED TO OFFER A DBA?

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

We are continuing with the examination of the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO). Here the judge considered (and rejected) that claimant’s [former client’s] argument that the CFA entered into with the solicitor was…

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN "INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION": A REPORT WAS "IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE"

COURT REFUSES PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE: AN “INAPPROPRIATE DISTRACTION”: A REPORT WAS “IN FACT LEGAL ARGUMENTS DRESSED UP AS ECONOMIC EXPERTISE”

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Kington SARL v Thames Water Utilities Holdings Ltd (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 84 (Ch) Mr Justice Trower rejected the applicant’s application to rely on expert evidence.   The proposed expert report was to “uncertain” and, in any event, unlikely to assist…

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW XIII: GUIDANCE ON SKELETON ARGUMENTS: "PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE JUDGE":  "DIFFICULT TO READ, DISGUSTING TO TOUCH AND IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. IT IS WORSE THAN NO SKELETON AT ALL"

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIII: GUIDANCE ON SKELETON ARGUMENTS: “PUT YOURSELF IN THE POSITION OF THE JUDGE”: “DIFFICULT TO READ, DISGUSTING TO TOUCH AND IMPOSSIBLE TO UNDERSTAND. IT IS WORSE THAN NO SKELETON AT ALL”

January 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Useful links, Written advocacy

This post is another in the series of repeats of the series on advocacy. This blog has many posts that record cases where judges have been critical of the contents (and usually length) of skeleton arguments.  A remedy for most…

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

COST BITES 207: THE BREAKDOWN OF EXPERT FEES WHEN AN AGENCY IS INVOLVED (AGAIN): THE RECEIVING PARTY, APPLES AND PEARS AND AN ELECTION HAS TO BE MADE

January 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  JXX v Archibald [2025] EWHC 69 (SCCO) Costs Judge Rowley considered the – much debated and litigated – issue of whether there needs to be  breakdown of an expert’s fee when the expert is instructed through an agency.  The…

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVOCATES WORKING WITHIN TIME ESTIMATES: COURT OF APPEAL POLICE THEIR PROCEDURE

THE IMPORTANCE OF ADVOCATES WORKING WITHIN TIME ESTIMATES: COURT OF APPEAL POLICE THEIR PROCEDURE

January 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Members Content, Written advocacy

In Chief Constable of Northamptonshire Police v Woodcock [2025] EWCA Civ 13 the Court of Appeal considered many significant issues relating to the civil liability of the police force. However this blog, being this blog, will defer consideration of those…

COST BITES 206: THE COURT WOULD NOT MAKE A SUBSTANTIAL ORDER FOR COSTS WHEN AN AMENDMENT TO A REPLY ABANDONS AN ALLEGATION OF FRAUD: (ALSO THE DANGERS OF PLEADING FRAUD WITHOUT SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THIS)

January 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Costs, Members Content

In Packer v Packer [2025] EWHC 27 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) considered issues of costs after a claimant had amended a Reply to withdraw an allegation of fraud.  The judge did not accept the…

CAN  A CLAIMANT WHO HAS ISSUED PART 8 PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT BE COMPELLED TO TRANSFER THE ACTION TO PART 7: THE COURT THINKS NOT

CAN A CLAIMANT WHO HAS ISSUED PART 8 PROCEEDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT BE COMPELLED TO TRANSFER THE ACTION TO PART 7: THE COURT THINKS NOT

January 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Chris Barnes KC for allowing me to rely on his note of a post he put on LinkedIn yesterday. It relates to the question of whether a court can “convert” Part 8 proceedings issued for the…

COURT GRANTS DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN ADJOURNMENT DUE TO THE ILLNESS OF LEADING COUNSEL

January 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Manchester Property Development Holdings & Anor v Kuit Steinart Levy LLP [2025] EWHC 35 (Comm) Dame Clare Moulder DBE granted the defendant’s application for an adjournment of an imminent trial because Leading Counsel became unexpectedly ill.   There was insufficient…

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS - A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1:  LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1: LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

January 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Webinar

Recent cases on the issue of costs being reduced, or disallowed, due to the conduct of the assessment proceedings have led me to review the cases on this topic. This is the first in a series of posts about the…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XII: BEING PERSUASIVE - SIMPLE IS BEST: "CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTS ARE SLEEPING PILLS ON PAPER"

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XII: BEING PERSUASIVE – SIMPLE IS BEST: “CONVOLUTED ARGUMENTS ARE SLEEPING PILLS ON PAPER”

January 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Members Content, Written advocacy

This post revisits the detailed article by Judge Stephen J. Dwyer, Leonard J. Feldman & Ryan P. McBridet called “How to Write, Edit, and Review Persuasive Briefs: Seven Guidelines from One Judge and Two Lawyers”. Remember the purpose of this…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XI:  ADVOCACY BEFORE THE MASTERS: YOU ARE DEALING WITH EXPERTS AND TIMING IS IMPORTANT

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XI: ADVOCACY BEFORE THE MASTERS: YOU ARE DEALING WITH EXPERTS AND TIMING IS IMPORTANT

January 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Written advocacy

Today we are revisiting an article by Master David Cook “Advocacy before the QB Masters – Some Do’s and Dont’s” and it reminded me why I wrote the original series. These are invaluable sources of advice and information.  Appearing before Masters…

COST BITES 205: THE COURT CAN CHANGE ITS MIND AFTER MAKING AN ORDER ON THE PAPERS: THE DANGERS OF "ETERNAL GAMES OF PING PONG"

COST BITES 205: THE COURT CAN CHANGE ITS MIND AFTER MAKING AN ORDER ON THE PAPERS: THE DANGERS OF “ETERNAL GAMES OF PING PONG”

January 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In  Smith v McAlpine [2024] EWHC 3408 (KB) Senior Master Cook varied an order for costs that had been made after an application had been considered on the papers.  After considering further submissions he found that his original order, that…

BITCOINS IN THE TIP: DEFENDANT COUNCIL GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENT ON LIMITATION DESCRIBED AS "DESPERATE"

BITCOINS IN THE TIP: DEFENDANT COUNCIL GRANTED SUMMARY JUDGMENT: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENT ON LIMITATION DESCRIBED AS “DESPERATE”

January 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Limitation, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment

In Howells v Newport City Council [2025] EWHC 22 (Ch) HHJ Keyser KC granted summary judgment to the defendant council in an unusual case. The claimant was seeking to recover a computer hard drive which had been put in the…

MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS? 10 KEY POINTS TO HELP

MAKING AN APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS? 10 KEY POINTS TO HELP

January 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Periodically I revisit posts on this blog to see whether they remain of relevance – this post (from January 2016) does.  It sets out ten key points in making an application for relief from sanctions. Every point made nine years…

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PART 8 PROCEEDINGS AND THE FILING OF WITNESS EVIDENCE

SUMMARY JUDGMENT, PART 8 PROCEEDINGS AND THE FILING OF WITNESS EVIDENCE

January 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Summary judgment, Witness statements

In Director of Public Prosecutions v Surin [2025] EWHC 10 (KB) Mr Justice Mould considered issues relating to the service of witness evidence by the defendant in the claimant’s application for summary judgment.  The unusual element of this action was…

JUDGE OVERTURNS NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANY: ANOTHER (EXPENSIVE) BATTLE IN THE "NEVER-ENDING WAR"

JUDGE OVERTURNS NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER AGAINST CLAIMS MANAGEMENT COMPANY: ANOTHER (EXPENSIVE) BATTLE IN THE “NEVER-ENDING WAR”

January 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Navid Hakimmaani, Consultant Solicitor at Collins Benson Goldhill LLP,  for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Mark Gargan in Smith -v- AXA Insurance UK PlC & Spectra Drive Limited (24th December 2024), a…

COST BITES 203: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE: "PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT REDUCING COSTS TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE FIGURE"

COST BITES 203: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT IN PRACTICE: “PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT REDUCING COSTS TO THE LOWEST POSSIBLE FIGURE”

December 19, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Summary assessment,

In Ferko v Ealing Magistrates Court & Ors [2024] EWHC 3297 (Admin) Mr Justice Sweeting carried out a summary assessment. In doing so he set out some key principles in relation to the assessment of costs. In particular issues relating…

JUST BECAUSE I DIDN'T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT DOESN'T MEAN YOU WERE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SAMRAI DECISION

JUST BECAUSE I DIDN’T ACCEPT YOUR EVIDENCE THAT DOESN’T MEAN YOU WERE FUNDAMENTALLY DISHONEST: ANOTHER LOOK AT THE SAMRAI DECISION

December 12, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer did not make a finding of fundamental dishonesty in a case where he did not accept the claimants’ evidence.  This non-acceptance did not lead to…

ACTIONS OF TWO CLAIMANTS STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE IN ENGLISH AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: "THE SOLICITORS HAVE NOT DONE THEIR DUTY APPROPRIATELY"

ACTIONS OF TWO CLAIMANTS STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE IN ENGLISH AND THEY COULD NOT SPEAK ENGLISH: “THE SOLICITORS HAVE NOT DONE THEIR DUTY APPROPRIATELY”

December 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Rashpal Samrai & Ors v Rajinder Kalia [2024] EWHC 3143 (KB). More accurately we are looking at a preliminary judgment in the case which appears as an annexe to…

COURT OF APPEAL FIND THAT CLAIMANT'S ACTION AGAINST "WRONG" DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: PERMISSION TO AMEND THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN

COURT OF APPEAL FIND THAT CLAIMANT’S ACTION AGAINST “WRONG” DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: PERMISSION TO AMEND THE CLAIM SHOULD HAVE BEEN GIVEN

December 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Striking out

I am grateful to barrister James Patience for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in ELYSA ALTON  and – POWSZECHNY ZAKLAD UBEZPIECZEN [2024] EWCA Civ 1435. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of a Circuit…

COST BITES 201: COUNCIL NOT GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL ON "ACADEMIC" POINTS WHERE THE REAL ISSUE WAS ABOUT COSTS

COST BITES 201: COUNCIL NOT GRANTED PERMISSION TO APPEAL ON “ACADEMIC” POINTS WHERE THE REAL ISSUE WAS ABOUT COSTS

December 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

In London Borough of Sutton v Betts [2024] EWCA Civ 1492 the Court of Appeal refused the defendant council’s application for permission to appeal.  The claimant tenant had found accommodation and, as between the parties, the points on appeal were…

COST BITES 200: THE COURT WOULD NOT DEFER THE PAYMENT OF COSTS FOLLOWING AN INTERIM HEARING

COST BITES 200: THE COURT WOULD NOT DEFER THE PAYMENT OF COSTS FOLLOWING AN INTERIM HEARING

December 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

In Brierley v Howe & Anor (Re Costs – 36 Bourne Street Ltd) [2024] EWHC 2983 ICC Judge Barber rejected a petitioner’s argument that payment of costs following an interlocutory hearing should be delayed or deferred.  The judgment is a…

COST BITES 199: HIGHER LONDON RATE CAN BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION, EVEN IF LOWER RATES MAY APPLY LATER

COST BITES 199: HIGHER LONDON RATE CAN BE USED FOR A SPECIFIC APPLICATION, EVEN IF LOWER RATES MAY APPLY LATER

December 6, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

The judgment of ICC Judge Barber in Brierley v Howe & Anor (Re Costs – 36 Bourne Street Ltd) [2024] EWHC 2983 (Ch) raises the interesting question as to whether the complexity of an application should lead to the solicitor’s…

THE USE OF INTERMEDIARIES IN CIVIL CASES: APPLICATION TO RELY ON INTERMEDIARY REFUSED: NO PERMISSION WAS NEEDED AND THE EXTENT OF THE CLAIMANT'S VULNERABILITY WAS UNCLEAR

THE USE OF INTERMEDIARIES IN CIVIL CASES: APPLICATION TO RELY ON INTERMEDIARY REFUSED: NO PERMISSION WAS NEEDED AND THE EXTENT OF THE CLAIMANT’S VULNERABILITY WAS UNCLEAR

December 5, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In CXC v Clarke & Anor [2024] EWHC 3138 (KB) HHJ Bird dismissed the claimant’s application for permission for an intermediary be appointed to report to the court.  The judge held that there was no requirement for permission. The application…

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

December 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP [2024] EWHC 3054 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber held that the claimant’s case was struck out because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order.  The judge refused the claimant’s application to…

FAILING TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM; FAILING TO SIGN THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH; VERY LATE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

FAILING TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM; FAILING TO SIGN THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH; VERY LATE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF

December 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In Randall, R (On the Application Of) v [2024] EWHC 2924 (Admin) Mrs Justice Lang held that the court had no jurisdiction to hear a judicial review application because a sealed claim form had never been served. Further the claimant…

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT "ARGUMENTS" SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

THIS IS NOT EXPERT OPINION BUT “ARGUMENTS” SAYS THE JUDGE: PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT NOT GIVEN

November 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Norman v N & CJ Horton Property [2024] EWHC 2994 (Ch) Master Clark found that proposed “expert evidence” was not evidence at all but simply opinions.  The person preparing the report was not allowed to give expert evidence on…

BOTH THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND STOCKPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL IN CONTEMPT OF COURT: THE UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED

BOTH THE GENERAL DENTAL COUNCIL AND STOCKPORT BOROUGH COUNCIL IN CONTEMPT OF COURT: THE UNLAWFUL DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED

November 28, 2024 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Disclosure, Members Content

In General Dental Council v KK & Anor [2024] EWHC 3053 (Fam) Mrs Justice Knowles considered a case where documents in the family court had been unlawfully disclosed to the General Dental Council.  The judge commented that there had been…

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

COST BITES 198: YET ANOTHER ROUND IN THE MEDICAL REPORT/AGENCY FEE SAGA: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE A BREAKDOWN OF THE BILL

November 26, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Hot on the heels of publishing the previous post in relation to the judge’s refusal to order a breakdown of the agency fees involved in a medical report I received a copy of a case from Ben Millns of Kennedys. …

COST BITES 196: COSTS IN A FAMILY CASE: “EVERY POUND THEY SPEND FIGHTING EACH OTHER IS A POUND THAT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN”

November 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Contribution proceedings, Costs, Members Content

In LI v FT (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs) [2024] EWFC 342 Deputy District Judge Harrop made some important remarks in relation to the amount spent in bringing, and defending, an application for maintenance spending suit. “I am dismayed by what…

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL: STRIKING OUT OF THE ACTION WHEN CLAIMANT DID NOT ATTEND THE PTR OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

THE JUDGE SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL: STRIKING OUT OF THE ACTION WHEN CLAIMANT DID NOT ATTEND THE PTR OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

November 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Members Content

The judgment of Mrs Justice Hill in Attaei v Alsharif & Ors [2024] EWHC 2972 (KB) is the second case this month where an appeal has been allowed against a refusal to grant an adjournment. In this case, however, the…

DEFENDANT COULD NOT PLEAD MATTERS THAT WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE JUDGMENT: QUITE A TALE HERE...

DEFENDANT COULD NOT PLEAD MATTERS THAT WERE INCONSISTENT WITH THE JUDGMENT: QUITE A TALE HERE…

November 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

In Tait v Torbay and South Devon NHS Foundation Trust [2024] EWHC 2958 (KB) Master Sullivan considered whether the defendant’s defence was inconsistent with the matters set out in a detailed judgment that had been entered on liability and causation. …

PROVING THINGS 250: SOLICITOR FAILS TO PROVE THAT FORMER CLIENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLINE REVIEWS

PROVING THINGS 250: SOLICITOR FAILS TO PROVE THAT FORMER CLIENT WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR ONLINE REVIEWS

November 20, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Samuels t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors v Henry [2024] EWHC 2898 (KB) Deputy Master Marzec found that the claimant failed to prove that the defendant was responsible for adverse online reviews.  He also rejected the claimant’s application that the…

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

EXPERTS, NEW EVIDENCE AND APPEALS: COURT OF APPEAL DOUBT THE RELIABILITY OF AN EXPERT REPORT

November 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision in  T (Fresh Evidence on Appeal) [2024] EWCA Civ 1384 is an appeal in a family court case. It contains important observations in relation to attempts to adduce new evidence at the appeal stage.  Equally…

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT: APPEAL ALLOWED WHEN NO REASONS GIVEN FOR REFUSING APPLICATION

THE COURT SHOULD HAVE GRANTED AN ADJOURNMENT: APPEAL ALLOWED WHEN NO REASONS GIVEN FOR REFUSING APPLICATION

November 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In EB Pension Fund & Ors v Froggatt [2024] EWHC 2721 (Ch) Mr Nicholas Thompsell (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) allowed an appeal where there had been a refusal to allow an adjournment.  He held that…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW 7: WITNESS STATEMENTS "ACCURACY AND NOT LEGAL ARGUMENT IS THE KEY TO ENSURING A WITNESS STATEMENT IS AS EFFECTIVE AS IT CAN BE"

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW 7: WITNESS STATEMENTS “ACCURACY AND NOT LEGAL ARGUMENT IS THE KEY TO ENSURING A WITNESS STATEMENT IS AS EFFECTIVE AS IT CAN BE”

November 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In terms of preparation of client’s case, and prospects of success,  witness statements  are crucial.  The rules only allow the witness to give additional evidence in exceptional circumstances.  Many cases that go to trial are, in essence, about the credibility…

THE MAN ON THE CLAPHAM OMNIBUS -  WHICH IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE AT A REMOTE HEARING

THE MAN ON THE CLAPHAM OMNIBUS – WHICH IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE AT A REMOTE HEARING

November 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Remote hearings

In Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors [2024] EWHC 2782 (Ch) the witnesses gave evidence (or attempted to give evidence) from inappropriate places, including a bus.  The judgment of Master Clark shows the need to follow the correct…

COST BITES 189: COSTS OF OVER £1 MILLION  FOR ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

COST BITES 189: COSTS OF OVER £1 MILLION FOR ARGUING ABOUT WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE A TRIAL OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE

November 6, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There are a number of important observations in the judgment of HHJ Pelling KC, sitting as a High Court Judge,  in Viegas & Ors v Cutrale & Ors [2024] EWHC 2778 (Comm). In particular the reminder to commercial litigants that…

MENTIONING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEETINGS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: PART OF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE STRUCK OUT

MENTIONING WITHOUT PREJUDICE MEETINGS IN WITNESS STATEMENTS: PART OF THE WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE STRUCK OUT

November 5, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Webinar, Witness statements

In Bond & Anor v Webster & Ors [2024] EWHC 989 (Ch) Master Bowles (sitting in retirement) granted an application to strike out parts of a witness statement that referred to an offer made at a without prejudice meeting.  The…

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS DO NOT A HAPPY JUDGE MAKE II: THE COURT MAY IMPOSE SANCTIONS IN APPROPRIATE CASES

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS DO NOT A HAPPY JUDGE MAKE II: THE COURT MAY IMPOSE SANCTIONS IN APPROPRIATE CASES

October 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

In  Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm)  HH Judge Davis-White KC (sitting as a Judge of the King’s Bench Division) reminded practitioners of the need for skeleton arguments to be filed in  time accordance with court orders.    …

COST BITES 188: MAKING A PEREMPTORY ORDER FOLLOWING A FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

COST BITES 188: MAKING A PEREMPTORY ORDER FOLLOWING A FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

October 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders

In  Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor [2024] EWHC 2213 (Comm) HHJ Pelling KC found it was appropriate to make a peremptory order following the defendants’ failure to pay interlocutory costs orders.  (This decision was considered in Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor…

DEFENDANTS OBTAIN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: CPR 3.(2)(a) CONSIDERED

DEFENDANTS OBTAIN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: CPR 3.(2)(a) CONSIDERED

October 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders

In Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor [2024] EWHC 2659 (Comm) Mr Justice Bryan granted the defendant an extension of time to comply with a peremptory order to pay costs.  The application was made “ahead of time”. CPR 3.9 did not…

ISSUING CLAIMS IN THE TCC: LOCAL IS QUICKER (AND PROBABLY MANDATORY IN ANY EVENT)

ISSUING CLAIMS IN THE TCC: LOCAL IS QUICKER (AND PROBABLY MANDATORY IN ANY EVENT)

October 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies in Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building And Refurbishment Ltd [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC). This time to look at the judge’s concluding observations as to venue. The failure to issue in…

COST BITES 185: VARYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AFTER A CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES:  THE COURT CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRE-DISCONTINUANCE CONDUCT

COST BITES 185: VARYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AFTER A CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES: THE COURT CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRE-DISCONTINUANCE CONDUCT

October 14, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In her very last judgment in the case of Elphicke v Times Media Ltd [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB) Master McCloud considered the question of whether it is possible for a court to take into account pre-discontinuance conduct when considering whether…

← Previous 1 … 13 14 15 … 49 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

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)

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.