Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Costs » Page 31

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…

COSTS WHERE A CLAIMANT ACCEPTS A PART 36 OFFER LATE: TWO CASES WHERE THE CLAIMANTS CAME TO GRIEF

November 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

When a claimant accepts a Part 36 offer late costs become at large.  Here we look at two cases where late acceptance of a Part 36 offer had grave consequences for a claimant.* “A claimant who pursues a claim 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…

DAMNED IF YOU DO: DAMNED IF YOU DON'T: AGREEING COSTS BUDGETS AND COMPLYING WITH THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE

October 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

“Are lawyers colluding on fees?”, asked Rachel Rothwell in the Law Society Gazette yesterday.  Rachel was reporting on a concern, albeit a low key one expressed by some judges that parties are “colluding” to keep their fees high in costs…

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…

SUCCESSFUL PART 36 OFFER BY CLAIMANT ATTRACTS INDEMNITY COSTS ONLY FROM THE DATE OF EXPIRY OF THE OFFER: A HIGH COURT CASE

October 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Interest, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In RXDX -v- Northampton Borough Council [2015] EWHC 2938 (QB) Sir Colin Mackay revised an order in relation to indemnity costs following a Part 36 offer. THE CASE On the 12th March 2015 the claimant offered to settle the issue…

DO FIXED COSTS APPLY TO PORTAL CASES ALLOCATED TO THE MULTI TRACK? A COUNTY COURT DECISION – THAT SAYS THAT THEY DO

October 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Quader -v- Esure Services Limited (Birmingham County Court 15th October 2015) His Honour Judge David Grant considered the issue of whether fixed costs applied to a portal case that was transferred to the Multi Track. THE CASE The judge…

SUING OR DEFENDING ON BEHALF OF AN ESTATE OR TRUST FUND: DID YOU KNOW YOUR COSTS BUDGETS MUST BE FILED WITH THE PLEADINGS?

October 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

A solicitor has pointed out to me the surprise provisions of Practice Direction 3F – on Costs Capping.  The title of  the Practice Directions is deceptive. There are also mandatory provisions in relation to the filing of costs budgets at…

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO ALLOW APPEAL WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED FOLLOWING FAILURE TO GIVE TIMEOUS NOTICE OF FUNDING

October 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In its judgment today in  Mischon De Reya -v- Caliendo [2015] EWCA Civ 1029 the Court of Appeal refused the Defendant’s appeal where a claimant had been granted relief from sanctions following a failure to give proper notice of funding….

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…

WHEN DOES INTEREST BEGIN TO RUN ON COSTS? AN IMPORTANT DECISION

October 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Involnert Management Inc -v- Aprilgrange Limited [2015] EWHC 2834 (Comm) Mr Justice Legatt addressed the issues of when interest runs on costs. The problem arose because interest under the Judgments Act 1838 carries interest at 8%. Interest on costs…

LIQUIDATORS CLAIMED £1.1 MILLION IN COSTS: NO ORDER FOR COSTS MADE: NO ROBIN HOOD ORDER HERE

October 7, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Anton Smith of Ashton Bond Gigg Solicitors for sending me details of the decision of Mr Registrar Jones  In Brooks & Willetts (liquidators or Robin Hood Centre Plc) -v- Armstrong 2015 EWHC 2289 (Ch) a copy…

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF 20 YEARS AGO: ANY LESSONS FOR TODAY?

CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF 20 YEARS AGO: ANY LESSONS FOR TODAY?

October 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

I doubt whether anyone knew what a “blog” was 20 years ago. However at that time Civil Litigation Brief was a monthly column in the Solicitors Journal.  It is interesting to see how much (or how little) matters have moved…

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…

CHILDREN AND SUCCESS FEES PART 2: WHAT SUCCESS FEE WAS REASONABLE?

September 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

We looked earlier at the decision of the Regional Cost Judge Lumb in the case of A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th August 2015). As a result of that case the decision of the success…

THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: A PRIMER

September 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

 In the recent post on the case of  SRA -v-Imran we saw the problems posed because the respondent had failed to file a schedule of costs. Rather than order a detailed assessment the judge’s response was to order a “nominal”…

ADMINISTRATIVE COURT AWARDS NOTIONAL COSTS: THE PRICE TO PAY FOR THE ABSENCE OF A COSTS SCHEDULE

September 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There is an interesting exchange at the end of the judgment of Mr Justice Dove in The Queen on the application of the Solicitors Regulation Authority -v- Imran [2015] EWHC 2572 (Admin). A REMINDER This is an example of the…

HOW THE BANKS GOT AWAY WITHOUT PAYING COURT FEES (FOR A WHILE)

September 12, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthews in Santander UK plc -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland plc [2015] EWHC 2560 (Ch) is an important review of the Norwich Pharmacal principles. However that is not what catches the eye.  For a while…

"HOW TO GET SUED, MAKE A LOSS AND BE MISERABLE": 22nd SEPTEMBER 2015: HARDWICKE BUILDING, LONDON: RAISING FUNDS FOR THE BILLABLE HOUR

September 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Service of the claim form, Striking out, Uncategorized, Witness statements

LITIGATORS: HOW TO GET SUED: MAKE A LOSS AND BE MISERABLE RAISING MONEY FOR THE BILLABLE HOUR APPEAL (ALL PROCEEDS GO TO THE APPEAL) Gordon Exall and PJ Kirby QC. Hardwicke Building, Lincoln’s Inn. TUESDAY 22nd SEPTEMBER 2015 5.30 -…

COSTS, CFAS, ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES AND GOING OUTSIDE PUBLIC FUNDING 2: SURREY -v- BARNET & CHASE

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

See the appeal on this case discussed here.  The previous post looked at the decision of Master Rowley in Hyde -v- Milton Keynes Hospital NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC B17 (Costs). In that case the Master decided that a decision to…

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…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING

September 4, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

Relief from sanctions following late service of the notice of funding was granted by Mr Justice Simon in Jackson -v- Thompson Solicitors (& others) [2015] EWHC 549 (QB). THE CASE The claimant had failed in an action against multiple defendants…

HIGHER COURT FEES IN THE (NOT TOO DISTANT) FUTURE: THE GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO CONSULTATION

August 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The government response to the consultation process on court fees is now available. WHAT IT SAYS (“FOR THE MOST PART WE HAVE IGNORED EVERYONE AND THE INCREASES WILL GO AHEAD IN ANY EVENT”). “Following a consultation launched by the Coalition…

THE EFFECT OF QOCS ON LITIGATION: HERE'S THE THING: CASES WILL BE FOUGHT ON THEIR MERITS

August 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There has been much debate about the impact of QOCS on litigation. To date much of this has, inevitably, been speculative. However it is worthwhile reading George Riley’s article, Fundamental dishonesty and litigation in the post-Jackson landscape.  This shows, honestly…

"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…

QOCS, STRIKING OUT AND THE LIABILITY TO PAY IN FULL: A COUNTY COURT DECISION

August 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Colm Nugent of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me a copy of the judgment in Wall -v- British Canoe Union. A decision of HH Judge Lopez in Birmingham County Court on the 30th July 2015.  The judgment…

PROPORTIONALITY, ASSESSMENT AND THE COSTS OF BUDGETING: SENIOR COURTS COSTS OFFICE DECISION TODAY

August 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In BP -v- Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board [2015] EWHC B13 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker considered several issues relating to proportionality; the format of bills and the costs of costs budgeting. “Having conducted an assessment of the reasonableness of…

CHILDREN, SUCCESS FEES AND DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES : AN IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

August 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Insurance premiums, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The question of child claimants and deductions from damages remains a live and controversial one. The judgment on this issue of the regional costs judge,District Judge Lumb in A & B -v- The Royal Mail Group  [2015] EW Misc B24(CC)(14th…

NEW BILL OF COSTS CONSULTATION: A USEFUL LINK

August 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

A pilot scheme is being introduced for a new bill of costs model. Initially voluntary the scheme may become compulsory. THE DRAFT BILL AND GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS Useful guidance is available on the Hailsham Chambers website.  The draft bill and guidance…

COSTS: THE FACT YOU CAN'T PAY MAKES NO DIFFERENCE: AN IMPORTANT LESSON FOR LITIGANTS

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

In Bridge -v- Daley [2015] EWHC 2121 (Ch) Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered submissions made in relation to a losing party paying costs. THE CASE The claimant sought permission to continue a derivative…

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…

ESSENTIAL READING: "FEES A CROWD WHEN JUSTICE AND POLITICS COLLIDE": A NLJ & LSLA PUBLICATION

August 11, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

There is a section on this  blog devoted to links to posts on procedure and costs. Occasionally, however, a post is so important that I feel compelled to draw attention to it. This definitely applies to the publication “Litigation Trends…

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS AWARD OF INDEMNITY COSTS

August 10, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Arcadia Group Brands Ltd -v- Visa Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 883 the Court of Appeal, dismissed an appeal on the merits,  but nevertheless overturned the judge’s order for indemnity costs. THE CASE The claimants were bringing actions for breaches…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 3: THE COURT OF APPEAL AND ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDERS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

This is the third case today about the issue of costs and the conduct of proceedings. It is the most  complex, Smith & Nephew plc -v- ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 803. THE CASE The Court of Appeal allowed…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 2: LOSER PAYS ALL APPLIES: MOORE IS NOT LESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In The London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- The London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) Mr Justice Norris refused an application for an issue based order and made an order for costs under the general rule that the…

COSTS & CONDUCT 1: MULTIPLE PARTIES, "BULLOCK" AND "SANDERSON" ORDERS AND INDEMNITY COSTS TO THE DEFENDANTS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There are several cases today where the courts have considered the issue of where costs should fall and how judicial discretion should be exercised.  The first we consider is Asghar -v- Ahmad [2015] EWHC 2234 (QB) a decision of Mr…

IF YOU ENTER INTO A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT WITH YOUR CLIENT ARE YOU PLAYING RUSSIAN ROULETTE?

July 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Master Campbell in Addleshaw Goddard LLP  -v- Wood & Hellard [2015] EWHC B12 (Costs) has some interesting observations on contentious business agreements and the nature of litigation financing generally. THE CASE The claimant solicitors had entered into…

NEW RULES RELATING TO "NEUTRAL EVALUATION" ; LITIGANTS IN PERSON; ASSESSMENT; SPECIALIST FINANCIAL LIST (AND MORE…)

July 27, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

New rules have been introduced which (for the most part) come into force on the 1st October 2015.  Here we look at the key changes. THE RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.4) Rules 2014 were laid before Parliament on the…

THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS OF QOCS: IMPORTANT AND INTERESTING DECISION: THE MEANING OF "PROCEEDINGS"

July 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

There is an interesting decision on checkmylegalfees.com website in relation to the transitional provisions of the QOCS regulations.  The full transcript of Casseldine -v- The Diocese of Llandaff Board for Social Responsibility (Regional Costs Judge Phillips, Cardiff County Court 15th…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENTS NOT SENT TO COVENTRY: KEY POINTS AND LINKS

July 22, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The decision in Coventry -v- Lawrence [2015] UKSC 50 has not led to any major change in practice and procedure (in relation to a costs regime that had already ended anyway). A link to the judgment is here  KEY POINTS…

JUSTICE COMMITTEE INQUIRY IN THE EFFECTS OF THE INCREASE IN COURT FEES: HOW TO RESPOND

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

The Justice Committee is holding an inquiry into the effects of the introduction and levels of the increased court fees. If anyone wants to send their responses to this blog, in addition to the inquiry, I will arrange a specific…

ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: A MATTER OF RISKS AND REWARDS

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In The Queen on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authorts -v- the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 2401 (Admin) Mr Justice Green made an issue based costs order. THE CASE The…

SETTING ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE IN A QOCS CASE: TWO INTERESTING DECISIONS

July 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Rebecca Jones of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me details of an important decision in relation to setting aside a notice of discontinuance served by a claimant in a costs case. The note of the judgment below…

← Previous 1 … 30 31 32 … 36 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

  • EXPERT WATCH 71: “I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE”: THE EXPERT WAS “ADVOCATING” AND “HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: ADVISING CLIENTS AS TO THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: “CLIENTS WANT TWO INCONSISTENT THINGS”: CASES AND GUIDANCE (SEPTEMBER 2018)
  • MORE ABOUT THE CASE AGAINST A SOLICITOR BEING STRUCK OUT: THE ABSENCE OF AN ASSUMPTION OF RESPONSIBILITY MEANT THERE WAS NO CASE: A CLAIMANT CANNOT HOPE THAT “SOMETHING WILL TURN UP” ON DISCLOSURE…
  • WILL AN INSURER PAY FOR THIS? ONE OF THE MOST ESSENTIAL QUESTIONS IN LITIGATION CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 30th OCTOBER 2026
  • THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS

Top Posts

TUPE DOES NOT PASS ON LIABILITIES TO THIRD PARTIES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
EXPERT WATCH 70: EXPERTS' FAILURES TO REPORT ON THE RANGE OF OPINIONS LEADS TO THEIR VIEWS BEING REJECTED: ESSENTIAL READING FOR EVERY PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE LAWYER, ANYONE WHO INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT (AND ANY EXPERT...)
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (2): HOW TO SPOT "FALSE" AUTHORITIES AND WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT (PLUS SOME USEFUL LINKS)
THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (3): AI AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: VERY DANGEROUS BEDFELLOWS: TWENTY KEY POINTS

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.