Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Avoiding negligence claims » Page 22

AVOIDING UNDER SETTLEMENT 1: CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS (1)

June 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Useful links, Witness statements

The curious thing about writing about avoiding under settlement is that there is very little material on the subject, particularly in the U.K.   There are now plenty of websites which offer to sue your previous lawyer if you are not…

WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Useful links

The previous post looked at the “fish file” checklist  prepared by groups in a recent session I conducted in at one of Kerry Underwood’s courses.  A second checklist was also prepared by the groups and this related to  “defensive litigation”….

OTHER ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS: DEALING WITH THOSE "FISH FILES"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Earlier posts looked at the essential checklists prepared by delegates at the “how to get sued” conference.  Missing from those checklists was any discussion of one real problem for practitioners that can often lead to problems – the “fish file”….

PROVING SOMETHING HAS BEEN POSTED: SWEAR IT TO BE TRUE

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Serving documents

I initially read the Court of Appeal decision of Price -v- Price [2014[ EWCA] Civ with interest because it showed that the old CPR 3.9 still applied in family proceedings.  However Jon Williams pointed out that the case has an…

73rd AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES COMES INTO FORCE TODAY: FINAL TRIO OF LINKS

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Monmouthshire Law Society’s twitter account announced Happy 73rd update to CPR day this morning.  Here are three crucial links so you can join in the celebrations. CELEBRATORY LINKS  A general summary and the rules themselves are here Guidance as to…

"ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS": THE COMPLETE LIST

June 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Damages, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out, Useful links, Witness statements

The “Essential Checklist” series developed out of a workshop series in a course I gave last month. Six groups produced six checklists.  Here is a link to them all. SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: (“SERVICE WITH A SMILE”) Essential points before the…

AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: THE FINAL "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST" & A USEFUL LINK

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

The final list in the “essential checklist” series is on “avoiding undersettlement”. The day the course was held the Law Society Gazette had published Rachel Rothwell’s piece on Why Cannibalism is coming to PI.  One delegate noted that he had…

PRE-ACTION CONDUCT: ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS AND USEFUL LINKS

June 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

This is the 5th in the series of “Essential Checklists”. The group “Prequel” (the clue is in the name I guess) set out what they thought were essential elements in Pre-action procedure. PREQUEL’S CHECKLIST PRE-ACTION STEPS, PROTOCOL AND LETTERS BEFORE…

LATE SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM, RETROSPECTIVE EXTENSIONS AND OTHER CAUSES OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS: A CASE TO POINT.

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

The recent case of Kaki –v- National Private Air Transport & National Air Service Ltd  (QBD (Comm) 23/5/2014 raises some interesting issues in relation to the retrospective validation of service of a claim form when that claim form was served…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 20: THE GREAT BIG OVERALL CHECKLIST

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

I suspect that this series could go on indefinitely.  It is drawn to a close with a round up of the key points. KEY POINTS 1. Know what happened in Mitchell and how it could have been avoided. 2. Assume…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 19: PRACTICE "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION" OR DON'T PRACTICE AT ALL

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

This is the 19th (and penultimate) in this series on “surviving Mitchell”. What the Mitchell case makes clear is that there is now precious little room for error in civil procedure. We have to develop systems of “defensive litigation”. That…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: NOT ONE BUT TWO "ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS"

May 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Serving documents, Witness statements

Earlier posts have documented how these checklists were made.  The prequel to the essential checklist sets out matters that practitioners have to watch.  Here I set out the checklist prepared by the group “Stating the Obvious”.   It is no…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE PREQUEL TO THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

As part of the “Essential Checklist” series a group considered the issues relating to witness statements. Prior to the checklist it is worth reviewing some of the essential issues relating to the service and preparation of witness statements. THE ISSUES…

LIMITATION: THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST: BACK TO THE FUTURE AT WORK

May 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content

This is the second “essential checklist” compiled at a recent course held by Zenith Chambers.   In this workshop practitioners (primarily solicitors), of all levels and type of experience, were asked to produce checklists for the “danger” areas of practice….

LIMITATION: ESSENTIAL POINTS BEFORE THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

We have already had the essential checklist on service. We are now moving on to the essential checklist for limitation.  Before the Mitchell case it was usually limitation that was a major problem for litigators, particularly personal injury practitioners.  It…

SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: ADDING TO THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

One advantage of twitter is that it is instantaneous.  Tweeters today commented on the new practice at Salford of only sending one copy of the sealed claim form back for solicitor service.  This is something that can usefully be added…

“A DISMAL CATALOGUE OF CONFUSION AND ERROR”: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM, COURT ERRORS AND OTHER MISHAPS

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

An article in the Law Society Gazette this week reported a denial by the Ministry of  Justice that the civil court system had been affected by austerity.  Perhaps the MOJ should read the decision in Stoute -v- LT Operations Ltd…

SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Service of the claim form

In earlier posts I have described how groups of litigators got together earlier this week to draft essential “safety” checklists for key elements of civil procedure.  Here we have the checklist for service of proceedings. THE TEAM This checklist was…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE TIME FOR SERVICE AND THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: ESSENTIAL POINTS BEFORE THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST

May 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In an earlier post I described the work done on a recent course when delegates developed checklists designed to avoid problems in key areas of civil procedure. I was planning to put the checklists up individually. However in social media…

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: THE NEW RULES IN FULL

May 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It required a statutory instrument to reinstate the ability to extend time that the Jackson Report never intended to take away. THE NEW RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014 come into force on the 5th June 2014….

SURVIVING MITCHELL 18: RECOGNISING THAT 99.8% OF LITIGATORS ARE STARK RAVING BONKERS

May 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Damages, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

There is a growing trend of “cannibalism” in the legal profession. Advertisements on my local radio station this morning were asking “do you want to sue your lawyer”?  What is the legal profession doing to protect itself?  The answer is…

THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED WHEN A PARTY MAKES AN APPLICATION AHEAD OF THE DATE OF THE BREACH: THE ROBERT CRITERIA CONSIDERED

April 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) it was made clear that Mitchell principles did not apply in cases where an application was made prior to the date of breach.   The principles in    Robert -v- Momentum Services [2003] EWCA…

A BUDGET SERVED A DAY LATE IS A “TRIVIAL” ERROR: WAIN –v- GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 1274 (TCC) CONSIDERED

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It was made clear in Mitchell that the courts should not concern themselves with “trivial” breaches, however what was meant by “trivial” was never defined.  In Wain –v- Gloucestershire County Council Judge Grant, sitting as a judge of the High…

WHEN IS AN APPLICATION "MADE"? A MATTER THAT COULD BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE

April 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) discussed in a previous post means that there is a highly significant difference between applications made before the date of compliance and those made afterwards.   An application made after the…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 17: MAKE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE DEFAULT AND OBTAIN REALISTIC DIRECTIONS

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

It is no coincidence that Rule 17 is identical to Rule 3.  In fact I could easily, and without apology, repeat this principle as rules 10 – 20.  If you cannot comply with a court order, direction or rule then…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 16: DEALING WITH "FISH FILES": OVERCOMING PROCRASTINATION

SURVIVING MITCHELL 16: DEALING WITH "FISH FILES": OVERCOMING PROCRASTINATION

April 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

A “fish file” is a file that has been left for so long it has started to smell. Consequently the litigator avoids it and it gets smellier and smellier. These files are always ripe. Ripe, that is, for problems to…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 15: SHARE THE PAIN

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Most of the burden of complying with time periods and court orders lies with the solicitor.  However a solicitor’s life can be made easier by making sure that all those concerned with the litigation process know of the deadlines involved…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 14: LITIGATORS MUST KNOW ABOUT CREDIBILITY

April 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

 I am picking up on a point in Kerry Underwood’s article on Rules of Survival. In that article he emphasised the need for a client to “pass a test” of being able to be “Mitchell compliant” before the client is…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 13: READ KERRY'S RULES OF SURVIVAL

March 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

At the end of the previous post on Surviving Mitchell I wrote that there were important issues of law firm management which needed to be addressed and that, perhaps, Kerry Underwood would be better placed than me to address them….

SURVIVING MITCHELL 12: READ LEGAL ORANGE AND LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY

March 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The links section of this blog points readers to many and various useful posts and articles on procedure.  Today, however there are two that need singling out as part of the “Surviving Mitchell” strategy. LEGAL ORANGE Reading Mitchell-Proofing your claim…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 11: BE PROMPT: BE VERY PROMPT

March 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

Two recent cases have emphasised the importance of a prompt response to procedural issues. Anything other than “promptness” courts danger with the courts. The duty to act “promptly” does not just apply to making applications for relief from sanctions. A…

TEN LIMITATION MYTHS THAT EVERY PERSONAL INJURY LAWYER SHOULD KNOW

February 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

I am giving a webinar for CLT on the 4th March. Booking details can be found here “Limitation and PI Claims: 10 Myths that Every Practitioner Should Know” This webinar identifies and debunks 10 of the most common myths and…

DELAYING SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: “DICING WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH”: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLAIMANT BUILDING PROBLEMS FOR ITSELF

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

There are real dangers in leaving service of the claim form until the last moment. The Lincolnshire case considered here exemplifies the problems.   . The judge pulled no punches in relation to the risks being run by those who…

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…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 10: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME YET AGAIN: NEW STANDARD DIRECTIONS

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The problems surrounding agreements to extend time remain a constant headache for litigators ever since the decision in Lloyd stated that it was not open to the parties to agree to extend time by consent.  Here we look at the…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING BY E-MAIL: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

A recent post  looked at potential problems with serving documents by e-mail. That this is a very real issue is shown by a report of a decision sent to me by counsel.  The full details of the case are withheld. …

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…

THE REMAINING PROBLEM OF HISTORICAL AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: USEFUL GUIDANCE FROM PREVIOUS AUTHORITIES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE

February 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 ANDREW WILKEY –V- BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2002] EWCA Civ 1561 Wilkey was a case in which the Court of Appeal considered the practical impact of the decision in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997 and Anderton v…

DILATORY CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT CAUSES IT TO BE REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERTS

February 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

There is an important decision of Master Cook in the case of Chambers -v-Buckingham  Healthcare NHS Trust available at dropbox The case highlights the fact that defendants  too can fall foul of the problems caused by Mitchell.  I will prepare…

ARE YOU SERVING DOCUMENTS BY E-MAIL? IS IT SAFE? ARE YOU SURE? A CASE STUDY IN PROBLEMS THAT CAN OCCUR

February 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Civil Procedure Rules allow service of documents by e-mail.  However I was involved in a case today which demonstrated that relying on e-mail service can be problematic and led to the sender requiring relief from sanctions. THE RULES CPR…

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…

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…

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…

PUTTING THE POWER TO AGREE TO EXTEND TIME IN THE COURT ORDER: A SHORT NOTE

January 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The question of whether the parties can agree to extend time for compliance with a court order is an open one at the moment. See the discussion in the earlier posts on this issue.  There was a short tweet earlier…

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…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 5: CAN YOU EVEN AGREE EXTENSIONS OF TIME?

January 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The earlier post on extensions of time gained a lot of attention and numerous issues were raised at twitter.  This is such a fast moving area that a case, reported yesterday, deals with some of the issues raised.  I wanted…

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 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…

← Previous 1 … 21 22 23 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

  • A PARTY CANNOT ADVANCE ONE CASE IN ONE SET OF PROCEEDINGS AND THE OPPOSITE CASE IN ANOTHER: ESTOPPEL BY CONDUCT LEADS TO A COUNTERCLAIM BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
  • COST BITES 426: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION THAT A CLAIMANT IN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK SHOULD PAY COSTS AFTER DISCONTINUING: “THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK IS DESIGNED TO BE DIFFERENT”
  • COST BITES 425: THE EAT OVERTURNS AN ORDER “ASSESSING” COSTS: THE ET APPLIED THE WRONG TEST IN RELATION TO THE CLAIANT’S MEANS, AND THEN FAILED TO SHOW IT HAD ASSESSED THE COSTS SCHEDULE AT ALL..
  • SHOULD UNDUE DELAY AND “GROVIT” ABUSE LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT UNLESS THERE ARE COMPELLING REASONS NO TO DO SO? THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDER THE ISSUES
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT DOCUMENTS NEED TO BE IN AN APPEAL BUNDLE? A JUDGMENT ON THAT VERY POINT:”DOCUMENTS GENUINELY REQUIRED FOR DETERMINATION OF THE APPEAL”

Top Posts

COST BITES 419: HOW CLAIMING COUNSEL'S FEES ON AN N260 CAN LEAD TO REFERRAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED: SIGNATORY BEWARE
COST BITES 423: THE JUDGE'S EYEBROWS ARE RAISED AT AN ADDITIONAL £2,500 BECAUSE THE KC HAS TO STAY FOR THE AFTERNOON...
COST BITES 421 : THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE IS BACK IN COURT: CLAIMANT'S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT OF A CASE WHERE HE LOST "ON EVERY MATERIAL POINT OF FACT AND LAW" LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN COURT: AN INTERESTING PRACTICE DIRECTION FROM THE HIGH COURT IN IRELAND : GOOD ADVICE FOR US ALL
MAZUR MATTERS 66: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD FINAL REPORT ON MAZUR: "REGULATORY REVIEW OF ADVICE AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE PROFESSION ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGAITON BY APPROVED REGULATORS AND REGULATORY BODIES"

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.