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 36
IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO TURN UP FOR COURT DON'T EXPECT MUCH SYMPATHY: COUNCIL TOLD TO GET ON ITS BIKE

IF YOU DECIDE NOT TO TURN UP FOR COURT DON’T EXPECT MUCH SYMPATHY: COUNCIL TOLD TO GET ON ITS BIKE

January 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

The judgment  of the Court of Appeal in Camden Borough Council -v- Humphreys [2017] EWCA Civ 24 illustrates the danger of  a party deciding not to attend a hearing. THE CASE A recipient of a parking ticket, Mr Humphreys,  had…

A FUNDAMENTAL CHANGE OF APPROACH NEEDED ON APPLICATIONS IN RELATION TO JURISDICTION: TOO MANY DOCUMENTS, TOO MUCH TIME

January 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content

In his judgment in His Royal Highnss Emere Godwin Bebe Okpabi -v- Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd [2017] EWHC 89 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser observed that applications in relation to jurisdiction needed a different approach from practitioners. “This…

RESTORING A COMPANY TO THE REGISTER, LIMITATION AND PROVING A CAUSAL LINK: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

January 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Insolvency, Members Content

Litigators are sometimes called upon the restore limited companies to the register and make a limitation direction.  The decision of the Court of Appeal today in Pickering -v- Davy [2016] EWCA Civ 30 gives rise to additional problems. It emphasises…

ADVERSE DECISION IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS DID NOT RENDER AN ACTION AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED STRIKING OUT DECISION

January 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out

 In Michael Wilson & Partners -v- Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to strike out the claimant’s case.  The fact that there had been earlier arbitration proceedings did not, in this case,  render a second…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER CASE

January 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Limitation, Members Content, Sanctions, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

There is a brief report on  Browne Jacobson Insurance Law about a case that struck out because of a failure to pay the correct fees. THE REPORT The report is brief and does not give the date of the judgment…

LITIGATORS: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG? 10 KEY POINTS

January 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

There has been an unusual amount of sympathy today on Twitter for the report of a newly qualified solicitor who was struck off.  The solicitor “had ‘messed up’ on a handful of the 170 cases he was handling and did…

DELAY AND NON-COMPLIANCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT: A "GAME CHANGER"

January 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthew in Phelps -v- Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) emphasises the dangers of delay and non compliance. “…I will observe that the Court ethos has changed enormously since the days of Lord Denning and the two…

CIVIL CASE OF THE YEAR 2016: THE CASE THAT ENCAPSULATES CIVIL EVIDENCE: HOW THE COURT DECIDES

January 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

There were many important cases on procedure and costs in 2016.  Choosing a case of importance to litigators was not an easy task.  However I kept coming back to  the judgment of Master Matthews in Adepoju -v- Akinola [2016] EWHC 3160…

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2016: PROMISCUOUS BUNDLES & THAT CRAZY LITTLE THING CALLED PROPORTIONALITY

December 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Credibility of experts, Experts, Fundamental Dishonesty, Injunctions, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

This is the third annual review of the year on this blog. 2016, as ever, has been an interesting year.  As ever, a comprehensive review can be found in Herbert Smith Freehills A litigator’s yearbook: 2016 (England and Wales). PREDICTIONS…

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE, AMENDMENT & STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER DECISION

December 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

There have been a number of cases in relation to the consequences for a claimant when the correct court fee has not been paid upon issue.  This issue was considered by His Honour Judge Robinson this week in an appeal…

WITNESS STATEMENTS, STATEMENTS OF TRUTH AND CONTEMPT OF COURT

December 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mrs Justice Slade in Aviva Insurance -v- Randive [2016] EWHC 3152 (QB) involves no findings of fact.  However it does demonstrate the dangers inherent in being involved in the drafting of witness statements and replies to Part…

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE'S VIEW X: 10 KEY POINTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW X: 10 KEY POINTS FROM AROUND THE WORLD

December 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

This is the last in the series of Advocacy the Judge’s view.  We have looked at advice given by judges from around the world.  Here I select a key point from each. 1. ADVICE FROM CANADA – MANNERS MATTER It…

UNDUE HARDSHIP AND THE FOREIGN LIMITATION PERIODS ACT

December 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Jurisdiction,, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury, Uncategorized

The Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984 is one of those matters that litigators must always have at the forefront of their mind when dealing with any matter that has a foreign connection.  The stringent nature of the Act is made…

SECOND APPLICATION FOR SECURITY FOR COSTS WAS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS (THIS TIME)

November 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Holyoake -v- Candy [2016] EWHC 3065 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee decided that a second application for security for costs was not an abuse of process.  The judgment reviews the law relating to second applications and abuse in detail. It…

INTERPRETERS CANNOT (AND WOULD NOT) BE COMPELLED TO ATTEND TRIAL FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION

November 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

The case of Kimathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3004 (QB) has already featured several times on this blog.  Here we look at the judgment made last week relating to the defendant’s application that interpreters attend trial…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: THE BEHRENS' EFFECT

November 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

His Honour Judge Behrens, the resident Chancery judge in Leeds, retires tomorrow. This led me to consider the contribution he has made to civil procedure. JOHN BEHRENS AT THE BAR I could begin by telling of the  meticulous neatness of…

THE DEAD CAN'T SUE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

November 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Group Litigation Orders, Members Content, Parties to actions, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Kimathi & Ors -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart reviewed the principles in relation to bringing an action on behalf of a deceased party.  It is an important reminder of some very…

LATE AMENDMENT OF PARTICULARS OF CLAIM NOT PERMITTED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

November 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Amendment, Applications, Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized

In a judgment today  in Henderson -v- Dorset Healthcare University Foundation NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 3032 (QB) Mr Justice Warby refused a claimant’s application to amend the Particulars of Claim.  The judgment covers a number of points. In particular it…

MINISTRY OF DEFENCE REFUSED EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: ORDERS ARE ORDERS

November 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In Eaglesham -v- Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 3011 (QB) Mrs Justice Andrews DBE refused the defendant’s application for an extension of time for compliance with an unless order. The Defence was struck out. “A party who faces genuine difficulties…

THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can…

THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)

November 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…

WITNESS STATEMENT OF OPINION IS OF NO ASSISTANCE AND WAS NOT ADMITTED

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There is a telling passage in the judgment of Richard Salter QC in St Vincent European General Partner Ltd -v- Robinson [2016] EWHC 2920 (Comm). A statement of bare opinion, with nothing to support it, was not admitted in evidence….

SERVING WITNESS STATEMENTS LATE: THERE IS NO CLEARWAY BACK

November 14, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

In Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd -v- Miles Smith Ltd (08/11/2016) the Court of Appeal upheld a decision not to grant the claimant relief from sanctions when witness statements were served late. Here we look at the first instance decision in…

HOURLY RATES, SUCCESS FEES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – ALL IN ONE CASE

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

There is a great deal of material covered in the judgment of Master Gordon-Saker in Various Claimants -v- MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B29 (Costs). THE CASE The court was determining various preliminary issues in relation to costs in the “phone…

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN REVISING A BUDGET: AN ACUTE CHANGE OF CASE IS REQUIRED

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN REVISING A BUDGET: AN ACUTE CHANGE OF CASE IS REQUIRED

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs budgeting, Members Content

I am grateful to Michael Davidson from Acumension who has sent me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Hovington in the case of Warner -v- The Pennine Acute Hospital NHS Trust  (Manchester County Court 23rd September 2016) (available…

"SECOND HAND" SIGNATURES WILL NOT DO -"PRE-SIGNING" THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? – NOT A GOOD IDEA

November 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Uncategorized, Witness statements

This blog has covered the importance of the statement of truth on many occasions.  However the issues revealed in the Solicitors Disciplinary hearing in SRA -v- Jackson reveals a remarkably insouciant approach to the statement of truth. THE CASE The…

EXPERT EVIDENCE NOT NECESSARY: CASES ON EXPERTS THIS WEEK 1

November 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Daniel Alfredo Condori Vilca -v- Xstrate Limited [2016] EWHC 2757 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett refused an application to rely on an expert witness.  The case was unusual, however the principles are universal. The questions were whether there was an…

THE PARTIES CANNOT CONTRACT OUT OF COSTS BUDGETING (& A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE)

November 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs budgeting, Disclosure, Members Content, Uncategorized

An earlier post dealt with the decision of Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21.  However an earlier ruling in the same case contains a consideration of whether the parties can agree to sidestep budgeting….

WITNESS CREDIBILITY, DELAY AND DENTON.

November 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There is an interesting discussion of  the credibility  of witnesses in the judgment of Mr Registrar Briggs in Preston -v- Green (Liquidator of Cre8atsea Limited) [2016] EWHC 25222 (Ch). The Registrar also had to consider whether to exercise his discretion…

HIGH COURT OVERTURNS DECISION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: NON-COMPLIANCE CANNOT AMOUNT TO "GOOD REASON"

October 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Security for Costs, Uncategorized

  In Pittville Ltd -v- Hunters & Frankau Limited [2016] EWHC 2683 Mr Justice Snowden overturned the decision of a Deputy Master granting relief from sanctions.   The judgment contains an important consideration of the question of “good reasons” for…

NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET FILED LATE: THE DECISION IN DETAIL

October 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized, Useful links

We have looked, briefly, at the Court of Appeal decision in Jamadar -v- Bradford Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust [2016] EWCA Civ 1001. I am grateful to Aaron Vodden   of  Hempsons for sending me a copy of the transcript which…

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE AND LIMITATION: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT PRINCIPLES

October 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized

One decision that has led to interlocutory skirmishing and opportunistic applications is  Lewis v Ward Hadaway [2016] 4 WLR 6, [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch) and the consequences of failing to pay the correct court fee on issue.  This has left many…

PROVING THINGS 34 : THERE IS NO PRIMER FOR SCUTTLERS: WHEN YOUR SHIP DOESN'T COME IN

October 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

We have looked at many different types of case during this series. However this is the first time we have looked at an Admiralty case and at case about the “scuttling” of a ship.   The judgment of Mr Justice…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW IX: WHAT YOU WEAR MATTERS

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW IX: WHAT YOU WEAR MATTERS

October 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

This is the ninth (and penultimate) post in this series. It is inspired by a search term on this blog today “Can a solicitor dress casually in county court”.  This caused a lot of attention when I mentioned in on…

PROVING THINGS 33: CAUSATION AND THE BURDEN OF PROOF IN CLAIMS AGAINST SOLICITORS

October 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Uncategorized

We have looked before at the decision in The Connaught Income Fund, Series 1 -v- Hewetts Solicitors  [2016] EWHC 2286 (Ch). The previous post was in connection with witness evidence.  However the judgment on the burden of proof is significant in terms…

BEING A LITIGATOR – WHEN IT ALL GETS TOO MUCH (AND IT IS YOU THAT HAS TO PICK UP THE PIECES)

October 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

There have been a number of reported cases recently of young lawyers (sometimes trainees) obviously becoming overwhelmed by their workload.  This is not a new phenomenon, nor is it necessarily confined to young members of the profession. However it is…

RECOVERING LITIGATION FUNDING COSTS: A HIGH COURT CASE -BUT ABOUT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

October 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Arbitration,, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Professor Dominic Regan and Nicholas Bacon QC for sending me a copy of the decision in Essar Oilfields -v- Norscot [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm).A decision of His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a Judge of…

SOLICITOR'S AGENT HAS NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE AT STAGE 3 HEARING: COUNTY COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

September 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

Who has a right of audience at a Stage 3 hearing? This issue has been considered in the county court and I am grateful to barrister Jonathan Dingle for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Peake…

INVALID SERVICE OF CLAIM ON SOLICITORS: ANOTHER CLAIM FORM INCORRECTLY SERVED

INVALID SERVICE OF CLAIM ON SOLICITORS: ANOTHER CLAIM FORM INCORRECTLY SERVED

September 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized

Problems with service of the claim form are a regular feature of this blog. I have written, many times, about the dangers of leaving service of the claim form until the last minute.  I have also written, many times, about…

MCKENZIE FRIENDS AND THE THREE WISE MONKEYS: A DISCRETION TO BE EXERCISED RARELY

September 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Written advocacy

In Ravenscroft -v- Canal & River Trust [2016] EWHC 2282 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered the law relating to allowing a McKenzie friend to be permitted to act. (This case also considered the use of without prejudice correspondence in court,…

FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION IN WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO APPLICATION BEING STRUCK OUT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

September 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Striking out, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Chief Master Marsh has had a busy day. This is the second decision today I am writing about. In  Wave Lending Ltd -v- Batra and SFM Legal Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 2238 (Ch) he considered whether a witness statement complied…

COSTS BUDGETING AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: BUDGETING THE COSTS OF ASSISTANCE AND COUNSEL

September 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision today of Chief Master Marsh in Campbell -v- Campbell [2016] EWHC 2237 (Ch) deals with some important issues in relation to costs budgeting, the costs of litigants in person, instructing counsel and the nature of costs budgeting generally. “……

LOOKING AT LITIGATION FROM THE LITIGANT'S VIEWPOINT 2: THE STRESS OF LITIGATION: GUIDANCE AND LINKS

September 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

The earlier post on looking at litigation from the litigant’s viewpoint led to some interesting comments, on the blog itself; on LinkedIn and on twitter.   It was particularly interesting to hear from lawyers who had been involved in litigation…

YOU ARE PAYING YOUR WITNESSES BY RESULTS: WE WANT TO STRIKE YOU OUT

September 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in EnergySolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) is a highly technical analysis of procurement legislation in an action that had already had a somewhat tortuous procedural history.  However I…

IF THE DEFENCE IS FILED LATE THE CLAIMANT IS STILL ENTITLED TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT: TWO POINTS TO WATCH

September 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Default judgment,, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment, Uncategorized

NB THIS DECISION HAS SINCE BEEN OVERTURNED BY A CHANGE IN THE RULES, SEE THE POST HERE. The decision of Deputy Master Pickering in Billington -v- Davies [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch) illustrates two important principles that are often overlooked. A…

PROPORTIONATE COSTS IN A FAMILY CASE: £33,813 REDUCED TO £3,737.50

September 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

In K -v- K [2016] EWHC 2002 (Fam) Mr Justice Macdonald reduced the costs of a successful party to an appeal in a family case. “The stringent test of proportionality in relation to costs incurred applies with equal force in…

OBTAIN AN INJUNCTION: PAY TENS OF MILLIONS IN COMPENSATION: ANOTHER WARNING LESSON

August 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Injunctions, Members Content, Uncategorized

This blog has looked several times at the dangers of obtaining injunctions. A particular danger is the undertaking in damages that has to be given when obtaining an injunction to freeze assets.  The judgment of Mr Justice Males in Fiona…

STATING THAT YOU ARE NOT WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FAR FROM CONCLUSIVE

August 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There are several reasons litigators should read the judgment of Master Matthews in Coral Reef Limited -v- Silverbond Enterprise Limited [2016] EWHC 874 Ch. For the discussion of whether a Master is bound by the decision of a High Court…

THE COURT OF APPEAL THRESHOLD: LOOKING AT CASES WHERE PERMISSION TO APPEAL WAS REFUSED

August 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Uncategorized

The Law Society Gazette today reported that the threshold for appealing to the Court of Appeal is not to change.  There is, however, a removal of the automatic right to an oral hearing when seeking permission from the court. Coincidentally…

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE CFA ASSIGNMENT BATTLE: CFA CAN BE ASSIGNED

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Azim -v- Tradwise Insurance Services Limited [2016] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master Leonard found that a conditional fee agreement could properly be assigned. KEY POINTS An assignment of a CFA between solicitors was valid. The validity of an assignment did…

← Previous 1 … 35 36 37 … 47 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

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

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? 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…)

Top Posts

  • 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)
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: "THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES..."
  • 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...)

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.