Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Civil Procedure » Page 66
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”….

WHEN CAN YOU SERVE WITNESS SUMMARIES? A HIGH COURT CASE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PARTY IS "UNABLE" TO OBTAIN A WITNESS STATEMENT

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The case of Scarlett -v- Grace (4/6/2014) QBD Phillips J was reported briefly on Lawtel yesterday. It provides an example of the difficulties when a party proposes to serve witness summaries rather than witness statements. THE RULES: CPR 32.9 CPR…

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…

YOU CAN AGREE TO EXTEND TIME NOW: BUT SHOULD YOU AGREE TO EXTENSIONS?

June 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes

Parties can agree to extend time from the 5th June.  I have already written on the dangers of the system.  However, if the dangers can be sidestepped, should a litigator agree to extend time. THE HEATED DEBATE: SHOULD PARTIES AGREE EXTENSIONS? This…

"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…

COSTS AND COSTS BUDGETING SOME ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS: GROUP H AT WORK

June 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

This is the checklist produced by Group H.  You can see the cost lawyer’s concerns at work in relation to the proper allocation of the case and the need to keep an ongoing record.   Of particular interest is the…

COSTS, COSTS BUDGETING AND MAKING A LIVING: THE PREQUEL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST

June 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

The fourth in our “essential checklist” series was prepared by a group that called itself “Group H”.  The checklist addresses issues relating to recording and recovering costs. GROUP H This was the only group where I was involved in some…

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…

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….

COSTS, CONDUCT, PART 36 AND THE "WINNING PARTY": AVB -V TDD CONSIDERED

May 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The case of AVB -v- TDD [2014] EWHC 1442 has received a lot of publicity in the legal press and beyond, involving a relationship between a solicitor and a law student.  However the surprising aspect of the reporting is that…

CORRECT COURT FEE FOR COSTS ONLY PROCEEDINGS: IT IS £50.00

May 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Beth King from Marsons who has sent me a copy of an e-mail from Beth King of Marsons solicitors.  There was a dispute with a county court about the appropriate fee for costs only proceedings.  Beth…

“FAILING TO SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES” AND LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS : GROARKE –V- FONTAINE CONSIDERED

May 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Groarke –v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1679 (QB) centred on a Road Traffic Accident that happened in November 2009.  The central issue on appeal was whether a late application to amend the defence to plead contributory negligence should have been allowed….

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 DELIBERATE DECISION NOT TO FILE A WITNESS STATEMENT AND YET RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: MONDE PETROLEUM SA-V- WESTERNAZAGROS LTD CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Monde Petroleum SA –v- Westernzagros Ltd (2014) QBD (Comm) (Hamblen J) 19/05/2014 a party intentionally failed to file a witness statement on time, yet relief from sanctions was granted. (The following is based on the Lawtel summary) THE FACTS…

CPR 3.9: MITCHELL AND APPLYING TO JOIN GROUP LITIGATION: HOLLOWAY -v- TRANSFORM MEDICAL GROUP

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Holloway -v- Transport Medical Group [2014] EWHC 1641 (QB) Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE considered whether the “Mitchell” principles applied to late applications to join the register of claims following a Group Litigation Order. THE JUDGMENT The judgment is available…

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AFTER MITCHELL: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST?

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There has been much discussion of whether the Mitchell principles impact upon an application have a default judgment set aside.  There are some cases that indicate that the amended CPR 3.9 should be taken into account in relation to a…

“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…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PRISONS AND SANITATION

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The issue of relief from sanctions was considered by Mr Justice Hickinbottom in Ashton (et al) -v- The Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1624 QB. THE FACTS A large number of prisoners were bringing actions  under the European Convention alleging…

A TWO DAY BREACH IS "TRIVIAL": ANOTHER CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF COSTS BUDGET

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Azure East Midlands Ltd -v- Manchester Aiport Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1644 (TCC) His Honour Judge Grant made an order for relief from sanctions where a costs budget was served two days late. THE BREACH The claimant filed its…

MITCHELL CASES: HAVING A TAXING TIME? THREE CASES CONSIDERED IN THE TAX CHAMBER

May 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The “Mitchell” principles have been adopted in other tribunals, not least the First Tier Chamber Tax Tribunal.  There are three recent cases where the Mitchell principles have been considered extensively by the Tribunal. The principles have had a major impact…

JACKSON L.J. ON AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATES: IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS

May 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have already dealt with the rules to be introduced next month in relation to the parties being able to agree extensions of time in civil proceedings. Today Jackson L.J. made it clear that it was never part of his…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: SERVICE AT “LAST KNOWN” ADDRESS: MORE DANGEROUS POINTS TO WATCH

May 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Following the previous posts as to issues and problems relating to  service  of the claim form some responses have highlighted the difficulties of service at the “last known address”. The rules here are somewhat complex, a detailed knowledge is necessary….

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…

YOU CAN AGREE TO EXTEND TIME – BUT BE VERY CAREFUL: FIVE DANGER POINTS EXPLORED

May 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes

There is some relief for litigators (and the courts to be honest) now that parties (from the 5th June) are allowed to extend time.  However the new rules introduce some potential traps. It is wise to be aware of these…

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…

STANDING UP FOR COURT STAFF: WE ARE ON THE SAME SIDE AND CAN'T LIVE WITHOUT THEM

May 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

I have, several times, commented on the strange decisions that appear to be being made by court staff carrying out administrative functions.  However one of the major challenges for all those involved in the litigation process is going to be…

MASSIVE DELAY, SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND THE MITCHELL PRINCIPLES: MID-EAST SALES LTD –v- UNITED ENGINEERING & THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN CONSIDERED

May 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the many moot points that arise from Mitchell is how far the amendment to the overriding objective and CPR 3.9 impact upon applications to have judgment set aside.  This issue was considered by Burton J in Mid-East Sales…

AMENDING PLEADINGS LATE AND MITCHELL: NOT A SMOOTH JOURNEY

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

What relevance do the Mitchell principles have in relation to applications to amend pleadings. Particularly when those applications are made late?  This was considered by  Mrs Justice Andrews in Dany Lions Ltd -v- Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC (QB) 928….

CHANGING THE TRIAL DATE : A CASE IN POINT: MITCHELL REMAINS A "TOP BRAND"

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

Ever since the introduction of the Woolf reforms the trial date has been viewed as fairly sacrosanct. Once set it is hard to change without a good reason. This position has probably hardened as a result of Mitchell.  The issue…

A WORD ABOUT BUNDLES: MORE VIEWS FROM THE BENCH: RULES APPLY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW TOO

May 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

The article I wrote on trial bundles remains one of the most visited posts on this blog.  It is always one of the most visited posts each working day.   Proper preparation can make a major different to the efficient…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 3: THE "LITIGATOR'S DILEMMA": DO YOU TAKE THE "MITCHELL" POINT?

May 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

This is the third in the series examining the practical consequences of the Chartwell decision. The first post looked at the importance of serving witness statements on time,  the second at the effect on the criteria for reinstatement. Here we…

PLEADING MITIGATION OF LOSS: WHY THE PRACTICE DIRECTION IS (ALMOST ALWAYS) WRONG AND THE RULES ARE A SHAMBLES

May 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Statements of Case

It is well established law that the burden of proving a failure to mitigate loss lies with the defendant.   It is for the defendant to establish that the claimant failed to act reasonably.  Somewhat surprisingly a Practice Direction in…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 2: OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IS DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

May 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision in Chartwell –v- Fergies Properties  has already been considered in detail.  An earlier article dealt with the importance of serving witness statements on time.  Here we consider the implications for the principles relating to granting…

THE COURT SERVICE AND THE "SECRET STATE": ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM "LEGAL CHAP"

May 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

A blog post yesterday highlighted the problems that solicitors had been having with some courts insisting that there was a “secret” letter that meant Part 8 applications could not be issued for minor approval applications. After considerable delay it was…

THE APPROPRIATE FEE FOR PART 8 APPLICATIONS: CLARIFICATION AT LAST

May 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In a post in February “Civil Procedure and the Secret State” complaints were made of a “secret” policy introduced by the courts of changes to a demand that Part 7 proceedings be issued instead of Part 8 proceedings and that higher…

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…

HAS PROPER DISCLOSURE BEEN GIVEN? A NEW AREA OF BATTLE. GLOBAL MARINE DRILLSHIPS LIMITED –V- WILLIAM LA BELLA [2014] EWHC 1230 (Ch) CONSIDERED

April 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the post Mitchell world parties are anxious to demonstrate that their opponents have not complied with orders of the court and, consequently, should have their actions struck out.  These arguments are likely to be particularly problematic in issues relating…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: WHAT DOES “TRIVIAL” ACTUALLY MEAN? A LOOK AT THE CASES

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 If you attend one of the, numerous, “Jackson” and “Mitchell” conferences that abound at the moment you can easily make the lecturer sweat. Ask them to define “trivial”.  Whether a breach is “trivial” or not is crucial to the way…

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…

MAKING AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE DATE OF DEFAULT SAVES THE DAY: KANERIA -v- KANERIA CONSIDERED

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

The Mitchell principles govern what happens when a party requires relief from sanctions.  An open question remained as to the principles  that apply  when a party applies for an extension of time before the expiry of the date for compliance….

← Previous 1 … 65 66 67 … 70 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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF DONE ABOUT … THE “AUTHENTICITY” OF DOCUMENTS (OR OTHERWISE)? TEN KEY POINTS FOR PRACTITIONERS CONSIDERING THE RISKS POSED BY ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
  • FALSE DOCUMENTS, LATE EVIDENCE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE: A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES THAT MAKE JUDICIAL LIFE MORE DIFFICULT…
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHAT DO YOU DO IF A WITNESS FINDS A MISTAKE IN THEIR STATEMENT?
  • ARE YOU SURE WHO IS REALLY INSTRUCTING YOU? SOLICITORS DECEIVED BY A FALSE EMAIL ADDRESS IN NAOMI CAMPBELL’S CASE
  • COSTS BITES 461: WINNING THE CASE BUT LOSING THE MAIN BATTLE MEANS CLAIMANT RECOVERS 85% OF COSTS: DEFENDANT CANNOT SEEK THE ADVANTAGES OF PART 36 WITHOUT MAKING A PART 36 OFFER

Top Posts

DECODING THE DIRECTORIES: ALSO WHO ASSESSES THOSE WHO ASSESS US: CAN LAWYERS BITE BACK? A WHOLLY FICTIONAL EXAMPLE...
THE CHANCERY DIVISION IS NO MORE: A PRACTICE NOTE FROM THE CHANCELLOR OF THE HIGH COURT
AI AND CIVIL JUSTICE: PREPARING FOR THE TSUNAMI – LORD BRIGGS ON ACCESS TO JUSTICE, PROCEDURAL RULES AND THE HUMAN JUDGE
ARE YOU SURE WHO IS REALLY INSTRUCTING YOU? SOLICITORS DECEIVED BY A FALSE EMAIL ADDRESS IN NAOMI CAMPBELL’S CASE
MILLIONS OF DOCUMENTS, 27 FACTUAL WITNESSES AND THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY: WITNESS EVIDENCE IN THE MANCHESTER CITY PROCEEDINGS

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.