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 53

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…

THE IMPORTANCE OF DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE RULES

November 4, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The Civil Procedure Rules set out rigorous requirements for the structure and layout of witness statements.   The editors of the White Book note (at 32.4.5 of the latest supplement that) “Unfortunately, rules, practice directions and guidance as to the contents…

← Previous 1 … 52 53

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

  • LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (5): “THE HEARING WAS A SALUTARY LESSON IN HOW AI MAY PROMPT LAY PERSONS TO SAY THE RIGHT THINGS IN PLEADINGS, BUT CANNOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THOSE STATEMENTS”
  • THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: USEFUL GUIDANCE AND AN ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST WHEN MAKING AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT…
  • A COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE: ANOTHER CASE THAT EMPHASISES THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT THESE APPLICATIONS: A LAWYER CANNOT SIMPLY PROMOTE A “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BUT MOST ACT OBJECTIVELY AND CAREFULLY
  • THE REPLY: THE THEME OF THE DAY: SIX USEFUL CHECKLISTS: MAKING SURE YOUR PLEADING DOESN’T FAIL THE BASIC TESTS
  • DRAFTING A DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: SOME IMPORTANT POINTS: YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CPR 16 AND DO IT FULLY AND PROPERLY

Top Posts

THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS...)
EXPERT WATCH 71: "I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE": THE EXPERT WAS "ADVOCATING" AND "HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL"
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS
CLAIM AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS STRUCK OUT: THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN...

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