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 50

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY E-MAIL: A USEFUL BLAST FROM THE PAST

February 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

The problems of serving by e-mail have been discussed several times on this blog.  The need for the recipient to “opt in” to receipt coupled with potential problems in proving service can give rise to difficulties.   I know from e-mails…

HOW TO COMPLAIN ABOUT PROBLEMS WITH THE COURT SERVICE: A MODEL LETTER

February 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Following the blog posts  about troubles with the court about issue and secret letters which appear to govern how proceedings can be issued came the following comment from Dominic Cooper of I E Legal. “It surprises me that any of…

REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: AEI –v- ALSTOM UK CONSIDERED

February 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Cases relating to relief from sanctions are being reported on a daily basis. Here we look at the decision yesterday of Mr Justice Smith in Associated Electrical Industries Ltd –v- Alstom Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 4330 (Com).  A case where…

TROUBLES WITH THE COURT: REFUSING TO ISSUE AND STRIKING OUT BECAUSE OF ALLEGED LIMITATION ISSUES: MORE EXAMPLES AND CASE LAW THAT MAY HELP

February 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

Hot on the heels of the complaint about the court wrongfully striking out an action came another, remarkable story about the court refusing to issue proceedings because of alleged limitation issues. THE REMARKABLE STORY Here it is in its original…

“STANDING MITCHELL ON ITS HEAD”: YOU SHOULDN’T EVEN BE TAKING THE POINT SAYS HIGH COURT JUDGE: WHY LITIGATORS ARE LIVING WITH THE MITCHELL DILEMMA

February 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Some of the (repeatable) epithets used to describe the consequence of the Mitchell judgment are “mayhem” “madness” and “mess”. In  Summit Navigation Ltd-v- Generalia Romonia [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm) Mr Justice Legatt was critical of a party who took a…

HAVE YOU BEEN "MITCHELLED"? THE PROBLEMS OF WITHOUT NOTICE ORDERS: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I am grateful to Simon Baskind from Cohen Cramer solicitors in Leeds for the following account of a “Mitchell” problem. ACTION STRUCK OUT BY THE COURT FOR NO GOOD REASON “I know we are all probably suffering from Mitchell overload…

FREEZING ORDERS AND THE DUTIES OWED ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT CAN BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE

February 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

 COOKE -v- VENULUM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD [2013] EWHC 4288 Freezing orders are part of the “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation. As such they should be approached with extreme care.  This case illustrates the dangers involved when a party seeks a…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: DID THE COURT OF APPEAL TURN A BLIND EYE TO MITCHELL? NELSON -v- CIRCLE CONSIDERED

February 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It is unusual to see the Court of Appeal granting relief from sanctions without reference to CPR 3.9 or the decision in Mitchell. That is precisely what happened in Nelson –v- Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER? A FURTHER HIGH COURT DECISION ON BREACH & SANCTIONS

February 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

 WAHID AND SHADKAM –V- SKANSKA UK PLC AND RIVERSTONE INSURANCE [2014] EWHC 251 (QB) (Mrs Justice Slade DBE). (This case has not yet been reported on Bailli and I will deal with the facts in some detail). THE FACTS This…

REMEMBERING THAT CASE MANAGEMENT HAS A POINT AND PURPOSE: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMATIC PREPARATION

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In the furore that now surrounds civil procedure it is often forgotten that the rules of civil procedure are a means to an end. That end being that there IS a fair trial on the disputed issues between the parties,….

MAKING SURE YOUR COMPLIANCE IS SHIP SHAPE: LAKATAMIA SHIPPING CO LTD –V- NOBU SU CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

This decision by Hamblen J and reported at [2014] EWHC 275 was dealt with briefly last week.  Here we take a detailed look at the case which involves several issues, including: Time for compliance with an order. The meaning of…

SCHEDULE OF COSTS SERVED 18 MINUTES LATE DOES NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have already commented on the highly technical points being taken as a result of the Mitchell decision. In Devon County Council -v- Celtic Bioenergy Ltd   [2014] EWHC 309 (TCCStuart-Smith J considered the effect of a schedule of costs being…

NEWLAND CONSIDERS NEW GROUND: LOSS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT A “GOOD REASON” FOR OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS.

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The case of Newland –v- Toba Trading involves some complex facts.  However it is important that it is reviewed n detail because there are important observations on civil procedure. In particular whether a party should apply for a review or…

FAILING TO SIGN STATEMENT OF TRUTH DOES NOT MEAN COSTS BUDGET WAS FILED OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It has to be recognised that the decision in Mitchell means, inevitably, that parties will take issue with minor breaches. Indeed it may be negligent for them not do so.  In The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO ARRANGE A TELEPHONE HEARING: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NOW?

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

JONES –V- WEALTH MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD (2014) Ch D (Arnold J) 12/02/2014 This case is reported briefly on Lawtel today. It concerns an application for relief from sanctions in insolvency proceedings. The relief from sanctions application was made prior to…

SENDING DOCUMENTS TO THE COURT BY E-MAIL: THE PRACTICE DIRECTION AND POTENTIAL PROBLEM AREAS

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

An earlier post about the problems of serving documents by e-mail led to a flurry of comments on twitter about similar issues in relation to filing documents at court . I am awaiting some reports of cases where the lodging…

Chambers v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust: A detailed examination as to why the defendant could not adduce its expert evidence

February 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

CHAMBERS –V- BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST [2013] EWHC (QB) (Master Cook ) (18/12/13) Chambers -v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust-1 This case  highlights the fact that defendants are far from immune from the problems caused by Mitchell. THE FACTS Chambers was…

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE BUDGET IS PROVIDED INSTEAD OF THREE? IS THERE A BREACH AND WOULD THE COURT GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS?

February 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Arguments about the form of compliance are likely to become as commonplace as about the time of compliance.   These arguments were considered by Master Kay Q.C. Important observations are made about the appropriate form for costs budgets when one or…

HISTORIC AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH OF THE COURT? CAROLINE MAEVE MEEHAN -v- JOSEPH MANLEY & CHURCHILL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

February 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The decision in Lloyd that it was not open to the parties to agree to extend time can cause a problem in relation to cases where service of documents has taken place late by agreement. This was a common occurrence…

MITCHELL AND SANCTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: WAS IT WORTH THE CANDLE?

February 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It is clear that the Mitchell principles are being applied widely. In The Queen on the Application of Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Mr Justice Coulson considered the principles in the context of a late application in judicial review…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 9: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME AGAIN! LLOYD & ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

February 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is now a lot of evidence of parties taking “opportunistic” points in relation to procedure. That is pointing to historic breaches, often months before a hearing/application, and arguing that these breaches mean that the case/defence should be struck out…

SURVIVAL AFTER MITCHELL: 30 POINT PLAN: WEBINAR AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

February 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The CLT Webinar I did last week on 30 points of avoiding problems after Mitchell is now available on demand  from CLT. Not only is this an economic way to get you training done it is a whole lot cheaper than…

OFFERS TO SETTLE: COSTS, CONDUCT AND A WHOLE LOT MORE: REHILL –v- RIDER HOLDINGS CONSIDERED

February 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The case of Rehill –v- Rider Holdings  [2014] EWCA Civ  42 offers quite a few lessons for litigators and litigants. In relation to offers and filing schedules of costs and the risks of litigation for litigants and lawyers.  REHILL –v- RIDER…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLAIMANT COMING TO GRIEF

January 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Striking out

Prior to the Mitchell decision the easiest way for a claimant to come to grief on a procedural issue was to make a mistake with service of the claim form.  The decision Murrills –v- Berlanda [2014] EWCA Civ 6 shows…

STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIM BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENT: MORE DETAIL PROVIDED

January 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dave Toulson of Hill Dickinson for a more detailed explanation of the news that prompted the article on drafting witness statements and proving damages. The original tweet was that a claim for hire had been struck…

THE DANGERS OF NOT USING PRE-ACTION PROTOCOLS & THE PRACTICE DIRECTION TO THE FULL: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PREMATURE ISSUE

January 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

The next in the series was going to be a review of the rules and principles relating to pre-action conduct.   However Kerry Underwood has written a post that deals with this issue comprehensively and I have nothing to add.  Here we look…

MAKE SURE YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT PROVES YOUR CASE

January 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

 The genesis of this article is a tweet earlier today where a solicitor reported that a claim for the cost of hire and storage had been struck out because the witness statement was deficient. “C entire hire, storage & recovery…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 6: "YOU GOTTA HAVE A PLAN": BE READY FOR TRIAL THE DAY YOU ISSUE

January 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The unforgiving nature of the Mitchell decision means that litigators have to be certain that they will be able to comply with any directions that the court orders.  In effect this means that a claimant has to be ready for…

LODGING TRIAL BUNDLES ON TIME: THE COURT WILL NOT GIVE A RECEIPT

January 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Risks of litigation

I received an e-mail today from Kerry Kirkbride of Active Legal Ltd in Birmingham. It follows an earlier post in relation to the need to lodge the trial bundle at time. I have permission from Kerry to re-print it in…

TWO NEW CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: WEBB RESOLUTIONS AND LLOYD & SONS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There were two High Court cases on relief from sanctions considered today. Both were decisions  of Mr Justice Turner Here we consider Webb Resolutions –v- E-Surv Limited  [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)and M A  Lloyd –v- PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC…

TWO FURTHER DECISIONS REFUSING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LINKS TO CASES

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are two further High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was refused. Webb Resolutions -v- E Surv [2014] EWHC 49 (QB) MA Lloyd & Sons -v- PPC International [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) These are links to the decisions.  A full discussion…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 4: BE CAREFUL WHEN AGREEING VARIATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

One issue that has arisen consistently since the Mitchell decision in particular is whether the parties can agree to vary directions.  The answer is far from simple. THE RULES The rules are always a good place to start. CPR 2.11…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE? THE APPROPRIATE TEST: AN OBJECT LESSON ON LITIGATION TACTICS IN A POST-MITCHELL WORLD

January 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 With relief from sanctions being notoriously hard to obtain the question of whether a party has complied with an order, particularly an unless order, is now of critical importance. In Dinsdale Moorland Services Ltd –v- Evans 2014] EWHC 2 (Ch)…

MITCHELL CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME: ANOTHER TWIST IN THE THEVARAJAH TALE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the case heard today of Thevarajah –v- Riordan [2014] EWCA Civ 15the Court of Appeal reiterated the rigorous nature of the Mitchell test.  Here we look at that decision in detail and the trenchant observations made by the Court….

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE CHOICE OF JUDGE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of Mitchell featured in the decision of Mr Justice Turner in Biljani -v- Unum Ltd[2014] EWHC 27 (QB) .  An application for the matter to be listed in front of a High Court judge was refused, part of the…

MITCHELL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CASE STRUCK OUT

January 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

Mitchell, in terms of the importance of case management, was mentioned in the High Court case of Vaughan –v-London Borough of Lewisham.  The facts were unusual, but the reference to case management powers and the importance of the economy and…

DO YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? ANOTHER KEY ISSUE PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BE CERTAIN ABOUT

January 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There was an interesting debate on twitter on Friday evening about whether Mitchell was being cited too widely.  It was reported that, in some cases district judges had rejected the argument that when parties were applying for extension of time…

SECOND ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Searches for “abuse of process and section action” formed more than half of the search terms that brought people to this blog earlier in the week.  It is clear that this is going to be a major subject of litigation…

CAN THE COURT CUT DOWN THE NUMBER OF WITNESS STATEMENTS? MACLENNAN –v- MORGAN SINDALL CONSIDERED.

December 30, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Rule Changes, Witness statements

 One little noticed part of the Jackson reforms was the introduction of a new to CPR 32.2 (3) which gives the court express powers to identify or limit the number of witnesses a party may call. That power has now…

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS A SECOND TIME: NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HALL –v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE EXAMINED

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Can a claimant issue again if an action is struck because of a  failure to comply with the rules and? This is likely to become a question of considerable interest given the number of cases that are failing because of…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 3: IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH A RULE OR PRACTICE DIRECTION THEN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT IS BREACHED

December 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Mitchell case makes it clear that applications for relief from sanctions made after breach will be granted sparingly.  Here we consider the merits of making an application in advance of the date of breach.  WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 2: ASSUME EVERY ORDER OF THE COURT IS A PEREMPTORY ORDER.

December 14, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Some of the cases on sanctions reported this week have been highly disturbing; with cases being struck out on the morning of the trial because the bundles were not lodged three days earlier.  As a result the only safe assumption…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE : 1 KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN MITCHELL AND HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

December 10, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision in Mitchell is already having a major impact on day to day litigation. This is the first of a series of posts which looks at the Mitchell decision and deals with the practical steps that practitioner’s must take…

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: THE APPROPRIATE TEST CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

December 8, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Smith –v- Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWCA Civ  1585 the Court of Appeal stress that applications for pre-action disclosure should not become “mini trials” and set out the appropriate test for the courts to consider….

BIFFA WASTE SERVICES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

November 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 Biffa Waste Services Ltd –v- Ali Dinler [2013] is a case where the judge, on appeal, overturned an earlier order granting relief from sanctions. The full transcript is now available and is notable for its detailed consideration of the principles…

DO YOU HAVE TO FILE FORM H IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS? SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE SURE ABOUT

November 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

 All litigators know (or should know) the central importance of Form H in civil procedure. If you don’t file the form in time then you don’t get paid. A colleague today asked me whether it was necessary to file a…

“AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW MODERN LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED.”

November 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 It may be thought that commentary on issues of procedural default is in abeyance until the Mitchell decision from the Court of Appeal. However, as recent posts have shown, cases are still coming through thick and fast.  When a judge…

PROPORTIONALITY AND COSTS: IT APPLIES TO BIG CASES AS WELL

November 14, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The short judgment of Mr Justice Males in the case of Vitol Bahrain –v- Nasdec General Trading LLC makes it clear that the issue of proportionality in costs impacts upon cases of every size, even the most major multi-million dollar…

INTERESTING FIRST INSTANCE DECISION ON STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES BECAUSE OF DILATORY CONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANT

November 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Striking out

The 9sjs website has an interesting report of a decision in the Bow County Court where the judge struck out a claim for £220,000 on the grounds that the claimant had not complied with directions.  See the report at http://www.9sjs.com/assets/Uploads/ozbay.pdf It…

WHAT CAN YOU DO IF THE PROPOSED DEFENDANT IS DEAD AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE OR ADMINISTRATION?

November 12, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

A recent post looked at the problems of issuing proceedings before letters of administration are taken out. Here we consider the problems when a proposed defendant has died and there are no executors or administrators.  THE PROBLEM  Probate is not…

← Previous 1 … 49 50 51 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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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