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

LIMITATION: DELIBERATE CONCEALMENT BY THE DEFENDANT EXTENDS THE LIMITATION PERIOD

November 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

In IT Human Resources PLC -v- Land [2014] EWHC3812 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered when the limitation period started when there had been concealment by a defendant. It is an important example of s.32 of the Limitation Act 1980 in…

THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS OF QOCS: A DANGER AREA

November 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I have seen a few problems recently with the transitional provisions of QOCS. In essence if the claimant has entered into a conditional fee agreement at any time in the past then they cannot have the benefit of QOCS.  A…

"IN TIME" APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM REFUSED: A DANGER AREA TO WATCH

November 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Frontier Estates -v- Berwin Leighton Paisner (Ch D 30/10/2014)* John Male QC upheld a decision not to grant an extension of time for service of the particular of claim. What makes this case important is that the application was…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: DENTON MADE NO DIFFERENCE

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

In Blemain Finance Ltd -v- Mukhtar &  Osman (28/10/14)* Globe J upheld a decision of the first instance judge refusing relief from sanctions. THE FACTS The claimant sought possession of the defendants’ home following a failure to pay. There was…

CASE NOT STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO FILE TRIAL BUNDLE & PAY COURT FEES

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

One of the most read posts on this blog was, in the middle of the Mitchell Madness period, when a judge struck out an action because the trial bundle had been lodged late.  This issue was considered by Hickinbottom J…

LIMITATION & THE DATE OF KNOWLEDGE CONSIDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF HEARING LOSS

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Platt -v- BRB Residuary Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1401 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the date of knowledge in the context of a claim for hearing loss. THE LAW The relevant sections of the 1980 Act…

THE DUTIES OWED TO THE COURT ON A WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATION: A VERY HIGH STANDARD

October 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In Standard Bank -v- Just Oil LLC [2014] EWHC 2687 (Comm) the Hon Mr Justice Walker considered the duties owed when a party makes an without notice application to the court.  Strong words are said. THE FACTS The claimant had…

NON-PARTY COSTS ORDERS: ALL THE LAW IN ONE USEFUL PLACE

October 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Making an application for a non-party costs order can be a controversial step in the proceedings. The, principles, law and practice are thoroughly reviewed by Mr Justice Akenhead in Weatherford Global Products Ltd -v- Hydropath Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 3243…

MATTERS LEADING UP TO THE MAKING OF A WITNESS STATEMENT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IMMUNITY: COULD YOU BE CROSS-EXAMINED ON THE WAY YOU TOOK A WITNESS STATEMENT?

September 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Statements made in the course of proceedings are usually subject to judicial proceedings immunity.  The scope and extent of this immunity was considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Singh -v- Governing Body of Moorlands Primary School [2013]…

A WORKING EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF NOT TAKING A FULL WITNESS STATEMENT: DISASTER CAN STRIKE

August 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The decision of Judge Keyser Q.C. In Kellie & Kellie -v- Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd [2014] EWHC 2866(TCC)  gives a working example of the dangers of not taking a full witness statement and exploring issues of importance with a…

LITIGATION AFTER JACKSON (POST DENTON EDITION): 12 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE

July 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Part 36, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Useful links, Witness statements

In August last year I wrote Litigation after Jackson a  10 point Survival Guide.  All of the points made in that post remain valid. I have added another 2 to deal with the situation post -Denton. The biggest danger, post…

DENTON, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND THE "LITIGATOR'S DILEMMA": LIFE IS NOW DANGEROUS FOR RESPONDENTS

July 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have written before about the “litigator’s dilemma” in relation to whether a point should be taken in relation to a breach, or an application for relief of sanctions opposed.  The Denton decision makes this issue far more difficult for…

FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF (OR CONFESSIONS OF A RELUCTANT BLOGGER)

June 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Useful links

Today marks the first anniversary of the setting up of this blog, tomorrow marks the anniversary of the first post. It gives an opportunity to recap (and reminisce).  CIVIL PROCEDURE IN JUNE 2013 When the blog started civil procedure was…

COSTS DRAFTSMAN SIGNING COSTS BUDGET DOES NOT RENDER IT A NULLITY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY CONSIDERED

June 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents, Uncategorized

There may be no end to the Mitchell points being taken. In a case earlier today, Americhem Europe Ltd -v- Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) e Mr Justice Stuart-Smith considered an argument that the costs budget signed by  a…

PAY COURT FEES ON TIME AND DON'T RELY ON COURT STAFF FOR LEGAL ADVICE: ANOTHER REPORTED CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED:

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

The case of Decadent Vapours Ltd -v- Bevan et al (Judge Jarman Q.C. Cardiff District Registry, 18th February 2014) was reported on Lawtel this morning.  It provides another warning of the dangers involved in not complying with court orders on…

CROSS-EXAMINING EXPERT WITNESSES: HINTS, TIPS AND LINKS

June 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Useful links

The impartiality, or otherwise, of expert witness witnesses is in the news today.  This would seem an appropriate time to look at the cross-examination of expert witnesses, particularly in the context of civil litigation. THE ROLE OF THE EXPERT IN…

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…

← Previous 1 … 21 22 23 24 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

  • ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCUSSION (ABOUT INTEREST…): THE STARTING POINT IS THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BEING OUT OF ITS MONEY (NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT…)
  • 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…
  • INTEREST ON DAMAGES: (1) GENERALLY; (2) AFTER THE DEFENDANT FAILS TO BEAT A PART 36 OFFER: THERE IS NO NEED TO FIND DISHONESTY OR SERIOUS CONDUCT TO AWARD ENHANCED INTEREST
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: RED FLAGS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS (1): THE WITNESS THAT GIVES THE COURT THEIR OPINION

Top Posts

COST BITES 435: £4 MILLION SPENT IN COSTS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL RECOVER A PENNY FROM THE OTHER: A "PYRHHIC" VICTORY LEADS TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS...
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
CAN DELAY IN APPLYING TO STRIKE OUT AN ACTION FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS IN ITSELF? THE DANGERS OF LETTING TIME GO BY
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.