Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Assessment of Costs » Page 10

COSTS BUDGETING IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN A HIGH VALUE CASE : BUT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL

August 22, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

In Signia Wealth Limited -v- Marlborough Trust Company Limited [2016] EWHC 2141 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered two issues relating to case management: whether costs budgeting should apply and whether a split trial was appropriate. KEY POINTS Costs budgeting A…

APPLICATION TO DISCLOSE THIRD PARTY FUNDER REFUSED

August 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Third party funding, Uncategorized, Useful links

The opening passages of the judgment of H.H. Judge Keyser Q.C. in Dawnus Sierra Leone Limited -v- Timis Mining Corporation Limited [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC) deal with the issue of disclosure of details of third party funding. KEY POINTS A…

BILLING YOUR OWN CLIENT: FIVE IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE HIGH COURT

August 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There are number of important lessons to be drawn from the judgment yesterday of Master Gordon-Saker in Rahimian -v- Allan Janes LLP [2016] EWHC B18 (Costs). THE CASE The claimant sought an order that the defendant firm of solicitors deliver…

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

August 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Damages, Default judgment,, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in  Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation.   In addition to…

FAILING TO FILE A COST BUDGET AND REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A HARSH LESSON

July 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Clinical Negligence, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

If a litigation solicitor is ever given the job of designing wallpaper here are the three key things that should form the recurring motif. The costs budget is due 21 days before the first case management conference. Where the claim…

YOU CAN BE A TOUGH NEGOTIATOR- YOU CAN ALSO FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE: HIGH COURT CASE EXAMINED

July 14, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Uncategorized

The law of privilege prevents a close study of the negotiation process in most cases. That is why everyone involved in litigation could benefit from reading the judgment today of Mrs Justice Slade in FPH Law -v- Brown [2016] EWHC…

COSTS BUDGETING – THE KEY DATES: A QUICK REMINDER TO AVOID A SHARP (BUT NOT NECESSARILY SHORT) SHOCK

July 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Court fees, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Uncategorized

You would think that everyone involved in litigation would know that new rules as to cost budgeting came into force on the 6th April 2016. However, judging from some of the blank (and worried) looks I have seen recently when…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID? WHEN THE CFAS DID NOT COVER THE COSTS: BAD NEWS FOR SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL

July 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Warby in Radford -v- Frade [2016] EWHC 1600 (QB) contains an important warning in relation to the construction of CFAs both for solicitors and counsel. KEY POINTS A solicitor entered into a CFA with…

SWITCHING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA: THE SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

July 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The saga relating to the assessment of costs where a claimant changed from public funding to a conditional fee agreement has been dealt with many times on this blog*.  All of these issues are now dealt with in the judgment…

CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: WHEN HAS THE CLAIMANT BEATEN ITS OWN OFFER? AN INTERESTING QUESTION

July 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The judgment of HH Judge Pelling QC in Purrunsing -v- A’Court & Co (a firm) [2016] EWHC 1582 (Ch) considers the impact of interest on a claimant’s Part 36 offer. Should the court simply compare the offer with the sum…

COSTS BUDGETING & DAVID -v- GOLIATH: DOES IT GIVE THE "LITTLE GUY" A CHANCE?

COSTS BUDGETING & DAVID -v- GOLIATH: DOES IT GIVE THE "LITTLE GUY" A CHANCE?

June 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

Costs budgeting remains highly controversial.  One question that is open to debate is – is it useful?  Its utility may be most apparent in cases where the sizes and resources of the litigants are vastly disparate. (Many personal injury lawyers…

PART 36: ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AND INTEREST

June 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Interest, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Bolt Burdon -v- Tariq [2016] EWHC 1507 (QB) Mr Justice Spencer considered the appropriate approach to additional liabilities where a claimant beats its own Part 36 offer and interest was awarded on a contractual basis.  However the judgment appears…

PROVING THINGS 22: DAMAGES, MITIGATION , PART 36 (AND EVEN SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES)

June 22, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Bundles, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision today in Pawar -v- JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 contains some important lessons in relation to proving damages, mitigation of loss and Part 36 offers. “The fact that a claimant does not mitigate…

WHO WON? CLAIMANTS GET 33% OF THEIR COSTS AFTER TRIAL

WHO WON? CLAIMANTS GET 33% OF THEIR COSTS AFTER TRIAL

June 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Kupeli -v- Cyprus Turkish Airlines [2016] EWHC 1478 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple considered issues relating to costs liability after the trial of a preliminary issue. “….there is a world of difference between a case which…

PROPORTIONALITY II (THE EXTENDED ALBUM EDITION)

June 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

The earlier post on the decision in Dr Brian May -v- Wavell Group Plc [2016] EWHC B16 (Costs) outlined the decision in summary.  This is a case that justifies an extended examination. REPRISE Following acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36 offer of…

PROPORTIONALITY: WE WILL, WE WILL ROCK YOU

June 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Jon Lord for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Rowley in Dr Brian May -v- Wavell Group Plc  given today (16/06/2016).  It is another case that centres on proportionality. There was a considerable…

OVERSPENDING ON YOUR COSTS BUDGET? BETTER TELL YOUR CLIENT

June 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

Way back in the mist of time (that is post-Mitchell, pre-Denton) I reported a decision of District Judge Lumb on sanctions and costs budgeting. That particular post was then  plagiarised without any reference to me (matters were resolved amicably). However…

INDEMNITY COSTS ON APPEAL AFTER PART 36 OFFER

June 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

For the second time today I express my thanks to John McQuater. This time for drawing my attention to the  Court of Appeal decision on costs in Summers -v- Bundy (11/02/2016)*  This case shows the importance of making Part 36…

PART 36: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A DEFENDANT ACCEPTS OUT OF TIME

June 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Besford in the case of Sutherland -v- Khan (21st April 2016) (a copy of the transcript is attached to this blog here  …

"THAT PROPORTIONALITY JUDGMENT": 10 KEY POINTS

June 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

The post yesterday on the decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) set out the case in some detail.  Here are the key points of that decision. KEY POINTS On an assessment of costs on…

PROPORTIONALITY CONQUERS ALL? PROFIT COSTS (AND COUNSEL'S FEES) HALVED

June 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has already received widespread publicity. The principle of proportionality was used to halve profit costs and counsel’s fees and make a substantial reduction on the insurance premium….

PROVING THINGS 20: ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONDUCT HAVE TO BE PROVEN: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED

May 30, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Collins -v- Thanet District Council Collins anor v Thanet DC anor (19 4 16)(Jud) 2 [2016] EWHC 1008 (QB) His Honour Judge Yelton (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the evidence available to support allegations of misfeasance…

IT'S NOT JUST WINNING BUT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME: COSTS ORDERS WHEN BOTH PARTIES ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE "WON"

May 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Milanese -v- Leyton Orient Football Club Limited [2016] EWHC 1263 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple considered issues relating to costs after a case in which each party claimed to have won. “I remind myself that this is an area where…

SUCCESS FEES:DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES WHERE CLAIMANT IS UNDER A DISABILITY

May 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The issue of deductions of success fees in cases when the claimant is under a disability remains a difficult one. I am grateful to Jane McBennett of Morrish Solicitors in Bradford for the attached note in relation to a court…

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAS: ROUND 2: ASSIGNMENT CAN TAKE PLACE

May 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Jones -v- Spire Healthcare Ltd His Honour Graham Wood QC had to determine the issue of whether a CFA can be assigned. The full judgment is an attachment to this post and is available here…

WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: MAKE A PEREMPTORY ORDER

May 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Uncategorized

In Peak Hotels -v- Tarek Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 690 (Ch) Mrs Justice Asplin considered the appropriate approach when a party  has failed to pay an interlocutory costs order.  There is a succinct summary of the relevant case law. “If…

RTA TRIAL FEE RECOVERABLE IF CASE SETTLES AT TRIAL

May 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

In Mendes -v- Hocthtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB) Mr Justice Coulson decided a point of some importance: is the RTA Protocol brief fee recoverable if a matter settles at trial. “… there are sound policy reasons for…

THE RISKS OF JOINING A THIRD PARTY INTO AN ACTION: THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS

April 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment on costs in Axon -v- Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 883 (QB) highlights the risks of a defendant bringing a Third Party into an action.  The defendant was successful, however the claimant was not ordered to pay all…

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS CAN BE IN PRIVATE: DECHERT DECISION CONFIRMED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

April 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Dechert LLP -v- Eurasian Natural Resources Corporation Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 375 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an assessment of costs could be in private.” “The issue is clearly of importance for both parties. On the…

COSTS SHOULD NOT NORMALLY BE REDUCED WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

April 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

|n Webb -v-Liverpool Women’s NHS Foundation Trust [2016]EWCA Civ 365 the Court of Appeal overturned an “issue based” decision on costs in a case where a claimant had beaten there own Part 36 offer. “It is a sad fact that…

DOES COSTS BUDGETING APPLY TO A FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM WHERE A CHILD IS A DEPENDANT? SOME MORE DETAIL

April 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Rule Changes, Uncategorized

Over the weekend I heard two speakers on costs budgeting mention my view that costs budgeting may not now apply to fatal accident claims where children are dependants.  Given the potential significance of this, it is worth expanding my concerns….

NEW RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS TOMORROW: THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS

April 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Rule Changes, Uncategorized

Following the post about the rule changes coming into force tomorrow there was some discussion about the transitional provisions. The confusion comes about partly because the SI introducing them says the same thing in different ways.  However further confusion arises…

RULE CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE: 48 HOURS TO GO

April 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Rule Changes, Uncategorized

A short, but timely, reminder that new rules come into force on the 6th April 2016. These include: No costs budgeting where the claim is brought on behalf of a child. Normally no costs budgeting when the claimant has limited…

COSTS OF IN-HOUSE SOLICITORS: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH

March 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Sidewalk Properties Ltd -v- Twinn [2015] UKUT 0122 (LC) the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) considered the issue of the appropriate rates to be charged by an in-house solicitor and the appropriate basis for an inter-partes award. KEY POINTS The…

APPEAL COSTS ARE PAYABLE IMMEDIATELY: HIGH COURT DECISION

March 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Khaira -v- Shergill [2016] EWHC 628 (Ch) Richard Spearman QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge) held that costs ordered by the Supreme Court were payable forthwith and an assessment should not be stayed until the end of the case….

IT'S ALL ABOUT THE COSTS (AND A LOT OF TROUBLE): COURT OF APPEAL CASE CONSIDERED

March 22, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal judgment today  in Patience -v- Tanner [2016] EWCA Civ 158 is a classic example of the difficulties that arise when a case is, in essence, all about the costs. It shows the danger of making, and…

COSTS BUDGETING: PROPORTIONALITY; CITY FIRMS & COUNSEL WHEN THERE IS £16 MILLION AT STAKE

March 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Morgan in Group Seven Limited -v- Nasir [2016] EWHC 629 (Ch) provides some interesting observations in relation to costs budgeting.  It demonstrates that issues of proportionality are important even in a case where £16…

COSTS, FIXED COSTS AND COSTS BUDGETING WHEN MAKING AN INTERIM ORDER: ALL IN THE PINK

March 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Interim Payments, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision of Mr Justice Birss in Thomas Pink Ltd -v-Victoria’s Secret UK Limited [2014] EWHC 3258 has only recently been posted on Bailii.  However it contains an interesting example of the court considering the issue of costs, fixed costs…

MOVING FROM PUBLIC FUNDING TO CFA: NOT A REASONABLE STEP IN THIS CASE

March 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB see the appeals related to these issues discussed here This blog has already reviewed several of the cases where the courts have considered the reasonableness of moving from public funding to a conditional fee agreement.  The issue is significant…

AN ATTEMPT TO LIMIT COSTS MAKES A CALDERBANK OFFER INEFFECTIVE

March 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Burrell -v- Clifford [2016] EWHC 578 (Ch) Mr R Spearman QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) decided that an offer which was equivalent to the sum awarded in damages was not effective because the defendant also…

PART 36: THE COSTS CONSEQUENCES OF LATE ACCEPTANCE

March 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The case of ABC -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 500 (QB) decided earlier today provides an object lesson on the dangers of Part 36. His Honour Judge McKenna considered whether he should depart from the “usual rules” in…

PART 36 OFFER DID NOT ENCOMPASS PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT: COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS: A BAD DAY AT THE OFFICE

March 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision yesterday  in Littlestone -v- Macleish [2016] EWCA Civ 127 deals with important elements of Part 36 offers.  Not least the importance of stating, with absolute clarity, whether an offer is exclusive or inclusive of previous…

DISCLOSURE OF DEFENDANT'S SOLVENCY: ADVERSE ASSUMPTIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE

March 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Security for Costs, Uncategorized

The case of Sarpd Oil International Limited -v- Addax Energy SA [2016] EWCA Civ 120 related to the practice of awarding security for costs by an overseas company which did not have to file accounts. The case raises other points…

SWITCHING FROM PUBLIC FUNDING TO A CFA: ANOTHER CASE

March 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB See the appeal on this case discussed here This blog has followed those cases where judges have decided whether it was reasonable for claimants to switch from legal aid to public funding. Perhaps more to the point, the issue…

DENTON DOES NOT APPLY TO DELAY IN PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT

March 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Simon Anderson of Park Square Barristers for his note of the judgment of Deputy District Judge Hill yesterday (4th March 2016) in the case of Martin -v- The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust. This decision is…

SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES, WASTED COSTS AND THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH

March 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Truth, Uncategorized, Wasted Costs, Witness statements

It is important that the report of the decision in Brown -v- Haven by Flint Bishop in their post on wasted costs order is given wide publicity.  The judgment of Deputy District Judge Lingard is available here. (This is one…

CHANGES TO COST BUDGETING RULES: KEY DATES AND TIMES

March 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Rule Changes, Uncategorized

The previous post looked at the changes to costs budgeting coming into force on the 6th April.   Here is a list of the key dates and times. These are key dates in litigation and the sanction for failing to…

IMPORTANT CHANGES TO COSTS BUDGETING: THE KEY POINTS

March 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

New rules in relation to costs budgeting come into force on the 6th April 2016. They apply to proceedings commenced on or after 6th April 2016. EXEMPTION FOR CHILDREN  5. In rule 3.12(1), for subparagraph (c), substitute— “(c) where in…

THE SOLICITOR, THE LIQUIDATOR AND THE CFA: STEVENSDRAKE THE JUDGMENT AT TRIAL

February 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

In Stevensdrake -v- Hunt [2016] EWHC 342 (Ch) His Honour Judge Simon Barker QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) decided that, despite the clear wording of a conditional fee agreement,  the defendant was not personally liable to…

PROBATE FEES,COSTS AND FATAL ACCIDENTS: SIX KEY POINTS

February 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Court fees, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Uncategorized

There has been major controversy recently about the proposed increase in probate fees. In particular there was some concern, expressed on twitter, that claimants could not afford to issue proceedings.  There are a number of points that need to be…

← Previous 1 … 9 10 11 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

  • COST BITES 439 : IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COSTS BUDGET A REASON NOT TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS ?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE RELEVANCE OF THE CLIENTS BEING SOLELY AT FAULT: SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES TO TACKLE
  • COST BITES 438 : CLAIMANT’S UNTENABLE ARGUMENTS LEADS TO REDUCTION IN COSTS RECOVERED: HOURLY RATES FAR TOO HIGH, EVEN WHEN THE CLAIM WAS “ONLY” FOR £9 MILLION
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION AN 8 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE (AUGUST 2019): AND LOOK AT THE LINKS…
  • EXPERT WATCH 66: RED FLAGS AND EXPERTS (1) :THE DUTY TO CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPINIONS: OFTEN “HONOURED IN THE BREACH”; OFTEN FATAL TO A PARTY’S CASE

Top Posts

EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY "WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT" TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...

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.