Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Conduct » Page 12

I WROTE LOTS OF UNEDIFYING, AGGRESSIVE AND UNCOOPERATIVE LETTERS: LOOK WHERE IT GOT ME

May 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

One of aspects of the judgment in  McTear -v- Englehard [2016] EWCA Civ 487 that could easily be overlooked is the observations of Lord Justice Vos in relation to the nature of the  correspondence between the parties. “It would seem…

APPLICATION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION REFUSED: SUMMARY JUDGMENT GRANTED

May 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB – THE JUDGE’S DECISION NOT TO ALLOW THE FIRST DEFENDANT TO WITHDRAW FROM THE ADMISSION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. See the post here. The judgment yesterday in Wood -v- Days Health UK Ltd & Others [2016] WHC 1079…

THE INTERCHANGE BETWEEN LAWYERS & EXPERTS: A DIFFICULT ISSUE

May 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In a week where there is a report of an application being made for a doctor to be committed for contempt* it is prudent to consider that difficult issue of the relationship between the lawyers in a case and the…

EXPERT REPORTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: PART 35 APPLIES

April 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Khaled -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2016] EWHC 857 (Admin) Mr Justice Garnham considered Part 35 of the CPR and the admissibility of expert reports in proceedings in the Administrative Court. “The…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE LAWYER'S DUTY NOT TO MISLEAD

April 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There are some important observations  by Mr Justice Leggatt in Al-Saadoon & Others -v- the Secretary of State for Defence [2016] EWHC 773 (Admin).  The case relates to witness statements and the duty of the lawyer when they know that…

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…

LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD AND IS IT IMPORTANT?

LITIGATION: WHAT IS AN APPROPRIATE CASE LOAD AND IS IT IMPORTANT?

March 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

I have been planning to write on litigators’ workloads for a considerable time. It is an important issue and, as far as I can tell, very little is written about it.  The issue is a fundamental one. What is the…

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…

WHAT IS THE POINT OF THE PORTAL? INSURERS CONTACTING CLAIMANTS DIRECTLY: STILL

March 1, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

I post (with his permission) a letter from Kerry Kirkbride.  It relates to the regular issue of insurers ignoring claimant solicitors and writing to claimants directly after notification on the Portal. WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PORTAL? “I am…

THIS IS A SORRY TALE OF WOE:SPECULATIVE SKELETON ARGUMENTS ARE OF NO ASSISTANCE

February 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In Lokhova -v- Tymula [2016] EWHC 225(QB) Mr Justice Dingemans set out a sorry tale of procedural issues in relation to applications in a defamation action. There are important observations in relation to co-operation; service of witness evidence and the…

"NEAR MISS" RULE NO LONGER APPLICABLE: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION ON COSTS

February 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Sugar Hut Group Limited -v- AJ Insurance Services [2016] EWCA Civ 46 the Court of Appeal overturned an award of costs made against a successful party. “The Claimants’ recovery exceeded the Part 36 offer by a comfortable margin and…

ANOTHER CASE OF INDEMNITY COSTS BECAUSE OF A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE

January 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision on Master Simons in Bristow  -v- The Princess Alexander Hospital NHS Trust [2015] EWHC B22 (Costs) contains examples of two mistakes that can be made on assessment of costs. The most telling is the defendant’s failure to respond…

THE DANGERS OF NOT PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE: CASES BARRED BY LIMITATION BECAUSE WRONG COURT FEE WAS PAID

January 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch) Mr John Male QC   summary judgment was given for the defendants on the grounds that a deliberate decision to pay an incorrect court fee on issue meant…

CIVIL LITIGATION REVIEW OF 2015: POETRY, CARPET BOMBING AND DISAPPEARING EXPERTS

December 27, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Members Content, QOCS, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

We civil litigators cannot be left out of the, apparently universal, need for  an annual review. The annual review last year was headed with the words “prolixity”, “sanctions” and creative writing.  Here we look at poetry, carpet bombing and disappearing…

PART 36: WHEN THE NORMAL COSTS PENALTIES MAY NOT APPLY

December 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Yentob -v-MGN Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 1292 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the judge not to impose the normal penalties when a claimant failed to beat a Part 36 offer. KEY POINTS When a party fails…

CHILDREN AND SUCCESS FEES 3: APPEAL WITHDRAWN

December 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Uncategorized

Earlier posts looked at the decision of Regional Cost Judge Lumb in A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th August 2015). The second judgment on costs is now available on Bailli. These posts deal with deduction of…

NO SPECIAL RULES FOR LITIGANTS IN PERSON: COSTS DO NOT FOLLOW THE EVENT FOLLOWING UNREASONABLE CONDUCT

December 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Litigants in person, Members Content, Uncategorized

Master Mathews faced an unusual scenario in Jones -v- Longley [2015] EWHC 3362 (Ch).  This case highlights the fact that litigants in person are not subject to any special rules and are liable to have orders for costs made against…

ASSESSMENT OF COSTS & FAILURE TO MEDIATE: CLAIMANT BEATS OWN OFFER AND COSTS INCREASED BY 10%

December 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The claimant beat its own Part 36 offer on costs in the case of Reid -v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust [2015] EWHC B21. Consequently costs were increased by 10% and additional interest accrued. “If the party unwilling to mediate is…

CLAIMANT CAN RECOVER COSTS AGAINST A DEFENDANT NOT NAMED IN THE CFA

December 2, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Engeham -v- London & Quadrant Housing Ltd & Academy of Plumbing Ltd (01/12/2015) * the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a consent order which stated that damages and costs were to be paid by a defendant not named…

COSTS AFTER RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT

November 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

An earlier post looked at the decision of Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart in North Midland Construction plc -v- Geo Networks Ltd [2015] 2384 (TCC).  Here we look at the subsequent order in relation to costs. THE CASE The claimant failed to…

WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS, ABSENT STATEMENTS AND LATE BUNDLES

November 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In F-v-M [2015] EWHC 3259 (Fam) Mr Justice Cobb made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors. The judgment is (and was designed to be) an object lesson in the need to comply with court directions and court…

COSTS WHERE CLAIMANTS ARE REPRESENTED BY MORE THAN ONE FIRM OF SOLICITORS: IT CAN GET DIFFICULT

November 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Ong -v- Ping [2015] EWHC 3258 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered the relevant order to make as to costs when the claimants in an action had been represented by separate solicitors. THE CASE Four claimants had been successful in…

PROPORTIONALITY AND SURVIVAL FOR LITIGATORS 4: CLAIM ONLY WHAT YOU CAN PROVE

November 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Uncategorized

Proportionality is, mostly, about money.  The problems that proportionality causes increase  in those cases  where the sums recovered are much less than those originally sought.    The over-claiming of damages is a dangerous tactic for many reasons. Not least it…

DOES EVERY FIRM NEED A "PROPORTIONALITY" TSAR? PROPORTIONALITY AND SURVIVAL FOR LITIGATORS 3

November 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Case Management, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In January this year I started a series “Proportionality and Survival for Litigators”. I predicted it would be a lengthy series. I want to look at practical ways in which litigators can ensure that costs remain “proportional”. This, most probably,…

ANOTHER CASE WHERE THERE WAS AN INVALID PART 36 OFFER; NO RESPONSE TO OFFERS TO MEDIATE AND NEITHER PARTY RECOVERED COSTS

November 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is a brief report on Lawtel of the Court of Appeal decision in NJ Rickard Ltd -v- Holloway (CA 03/11/2015)*. It is an example of: (i)the importance of making a valid Part 36 offer; (ii)an example of the consequences…

WHAT IS MEANT BY "PROPORTIONALITY"? CONSIDERATION BY THE SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE

November 3, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Hobbs -v- Guy’s and St Thomas’ NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master O’Hare considered the question of proportionality in the context of a low value clinical negligence case. “In my judgment, although it was reasonable for the…

YOU'RE AS BAD AS EACH OTHER: NO-ONE IS GETTING ANY COSTS: POWERFUL WORDS IN THE HIGH COURT

November 3, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In GBM Minerals Engineering Consultants Limited -v- GM Minerals Holdings Limited [2015] EWHC 3091 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser had some some strong words to say about conduct and costs, resulting in a decision that no order for costs should be…

APPLICATION FOR INDEMNITY COSTS REFUSED: A HIGH COURT DECISION

October 29, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Harlequin Property (SVG) Limited -v- Wilkins Kennedy [2015] EWHC 3050 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson refused an application for indemnity costs and reduced the sum claimed from £51,787.50 to £35,000. THE CASE The claimant made a…

IS THIS A PART 36 OFFER I SEE BEFORE ME? THAT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT QUESTION

October 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The decision of Mr Justice Morgan in Tim-Alexander Gunther Nikolaus Hertel -v- Artemis International Sarl [2015] EWHC 2848 (Ch) involves a complex set of facts but is  extremely important in terms of construction of Part 36 offers. (It is perhaps…

DEFENDANT COUNTERCLAIMING EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDULENT CLAIMANTS: AN INTERESTING REPORT

September 25, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is a report in the DWF update section of the case of Akhtar & Khan -v- Ball, a decision of HHJ Gregory on 10.7.15. It raises an interesting issue in relation to a counterclaim by a defendant faced with…

COSTS, CFAS, ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES AND GOING OUTSIDE PUBLIC FUNDING 1: HYDE -v- MILTON KEYNES

September 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

NB SEE THE APPEAL ON THESE ISSUES DISCUSSED HERE The decision of Master Rowley in Hyde -v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B17 (Costs) has today become available on Bailli. It contains important observations in relation to…

DELAY AND STRIKING OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS: SOME INTERESTING LESSONS

September 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Bowles in Solland International Ltd -v- Clifford Harris & Co [2015] EWHC 2018 (Ch) contains several matters of interest to litigators. Not only the fact that the action was struck out but some of the allegations…

"CONDUCT UNRAVELS ALL": INDEMNITY COSTS AND COSTS ON ACCOUNT: A FAMILY CASE

August 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in  Joy -v- Joy-Morancho (No 3) [2015] EWHC 2507 (Fam) Mr Peter Singer awarded indemnity costs against the respondent husband.  Many of the observations  in relation to costs are of general relevance to civil litigators as…

MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT LEADS TO REDUCTION OF COSTS BY 50%: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND NHS FOUNDATION TRUST

August 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is a report on Lawtel today of the decision of District Judge Griffith in Kerins -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham, 31st July 2015). The claimant’s costs were reduced by 50% because of misconduct in the assessment…

LITIGATION AS IT SHOULD NOT BE DONE: GOTCH -v- ENELCO

August 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Gotch -v- Enelco Ltd [2015] EWHC 1802 (TCC) Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart had strong words to say about the conduct of litigation and costs. KEY POINTS This is a case where five short passages from the judgment itself gives the…

← Previous 1 … 11 12

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

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

Archives

Blogroll

  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Legal Futures
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The Law Society Gazette
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2025
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2026. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.

To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2026 Civil Litigation Brief ®

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop