Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Arbitration,
COST BITES 178: VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT UPHELD ON APPEAL

COST BITES 178: VALIDITY AND ENFORCEABILITY OF CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT UPHELD ON APPEAL

August 19, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Arbitration,, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Finnan v Candey Ltd [2024] EWHC 2157 (Ch) HHJ Cadwaller dismissed an appeal against a finding that a solicitor and client had entered into a valid contentious business agreement.   The judge held that the finding below, that the appellant…

WHEN REMOTE HEARINGS GO WRONG: AND STRUGGLING THROUGH TO PUT THEM RIGHT - AT WHOSE COSTS?

WHEN REMOTE HEARINGS GO WRONG: AND STRUGGLING THROUGH TO PUT THEM RIGHT – AT WHOSE COSTS?

June 17, 2020 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Members Content, Remote hearings

I often listen to, and read, official statements about remote hearings with a degree of scepticism.   The impression is given that things are going smoothly. The reality is that things are often going awry and it is taking a great…

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT'S EXAMINATION - THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

THE COVERT RECORDING OF AN EXPERT’S EXAMINATION – THE SEQUEL: DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO OBTAIN NEW EXPERT

May 21, 2020 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In October last year I wrote about the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB).  The claimant recorded her consultation with the defendant’s medical expert and was given permission to produce these in evidence.  That case has…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE

March 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This is the third post today about the subject of the assessment of witness credibility. By a curious piece of good planning it comes from a judgment today in  Jiangsu Shagang Group Co Ltd v Loki Owning Company Ltd [2018] EWHC…

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…

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

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.