Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » Relief from sanctions » Page 24

SURVIVING MITCHELL 9: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME AGAIN! LLOYD & ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

February 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

There is now a lot of evidence of parties taking “opportunistic” points in relation to procedure. That is pointing to historic breaches, often months before a hearing/application, and arguing that these breaches mean that the case/defence should be struck out…

STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIM BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENT: MORE DETAIL PROVIDED

January 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dave Toulson of Hill Dickinson for a more detailed explanation of the news that prompted the article on drafting witness statements and proving damages. The original tweet was that a claim for hire had been struck…

APIL: MONITORING OF COSTS BUDGETING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS.

January 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs budgeting, Relief from sanctions

The Association of Personal Injury Lawyers is monitoring both costs budget and relief from sanctions. It has asked for information from members on these issues.  If you are not a member (you could always join) APIL may still welcome input…

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

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

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

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

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

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

TWO NEW CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: WEBB RESOLUTIONS AND LLOYD & SONS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Relief from sanctions

There were two High Court cases on relief from sanctions considered today. Both were decisions  of Mr Justice Turner Here we consider Webb Resolutions –v- E-Surv Limited  [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)and M A  Lloyd –v- PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC…

TWO FURTHER DECISIONS REFUSING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LINKS TO CASES

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Relief from sanctions

There are two further High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was refused. Webb Resolutions -v- E Surv [2014] EWHC 49 (QB) MA Lloyd & Sons -v- PPC International [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) These are links to the decisions.  A full discussion…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 4: BE CAREFUL WHEN AGREEING VARIATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

One issue that has arisen consistently since the Mitchell decision in particular is whether the parties can agree to vary directions.  The answer is far from simple. THE RULES The rules are always a good place to start. CPR 2.11…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE? THE APPROPRIATE TEST: AN OBJECT LESSON ON LITIGATION TACTICS IN A POST-MITCHELL WORLD

January 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Relief from sanctions

 With relief from sanctions being notoriously hard to obtain the question of whether a party has complied with an order, particularly an unless order, is now of critical importance. In Dinsdale Moorland Services Ltd –v- Evans 2014] EWHC 2 (Ch)…

MITCHELL: LINKS TO USEFUL ARTICLES AND POSTS

January 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Useful links

THIS POST CONTAINS THE DECISIONS RELATING TO MITCHELL AND THE CASES THAT FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS. LATER LINKS CAN BE FOUND AT DISCUSSIONS OF MITCHELL AT http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/mitchell-links-to-articles-and-posts/ WHAT IS ON THIS POST 1. Zenith Chambers. 2. Individual bloggers. 3. Barrister’s chambers. 4. Solicitor’s…

MITCHELL CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME: ANOTHER TWIST IN THE THEVARAJAH TALE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the case heard today of Thevarajah –v- Riordan [2014] EWCA Civ 15the Court of Appeal reiterated the rigorous nature of the Mitchell test.  Here we look at that decision in detail and the trenchant observations made by the Court….

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTY FAILED TO SERVE STATEMENT OF REASONS: FULL TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

January 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Relief from sanctions

There is a decision by Master Rowley in the case of Long -v- Value Properties Ltd 13/1/14 available on dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8keoeme94gvrzp/Long%20v%20%20Value%20Properties%20%26%20Anor.pdf THE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS This was an application for relief from sanctions arising out of a failure…

MITCHELL AND INDEMNITY INSURERS: A WORRYING TIME

January 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Relief from sanctions

One obvious concern about the Mitchell fallout is the position of Indemnity insurers. This is reflected in a piece by Hill Dickinson.  The observations need to be noted. HILL DICKINSON’S POST There is a succinct summary of the decisions in…

DO YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? ANOTHER KEY ISSUE PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BE CERTAIN ABOUT

January 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

There was an interesting debate on twitter on Friday evening about whether Mitchell was being cited too widely.  It was reported that, in some cases district judges had rejected the argument that when parties were applying for extension of time…

SECOND ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Searches for “abuse of process and section action” formed more than half of the search terms that brought people to this blog earlier in the week.  It is clear that this is going to be a major subject of litigation…

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES IF THE CLAIMANT HAS JUDGMENT OR THE DEFENCE HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT?

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Liability, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

 One important aspect of the new rules about relief from sanctions is that they apply to defendants as well. A defendant who is late in adducing evidence can be debarred from calling evidence as in the Durrant case. Here we…

MORE MITCHELL MAYHEM: USE OF SQUARE BRACKETS LEADS TO COSTS BUDGET BEING DISALLOWED

December 30, 2013 · by gexall · in Costs, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out

A  report by Tom Gibson in PI Brief Update makes worrying reading. The headline reads “ Would a district judge strike out a costs budget because it contained the phrase “[Statement of truth]”, in square brackets, rather than the full…

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO  RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

Links to posts and articles on all aspects of  civil procedure. Linking does not indicate approval or agreement but that all discussion on these issues is useful.   RECENT POSTS AND ARTICLES 23rd June 2019 Herbert Smith Freehills Litigation Notes…

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS A SECOND TIME: NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HALL –v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE EXAMINED

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Relief from sanctions

Can a claimant issue again if an action is struck because of a  failure to comply with the rules and? This is likely to become a question of considerable interest given the number of cases that are failing because of…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 3: IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH A RULE OR PRACTICE DIRECTION THEN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT IS BREACHED

December 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

The Mitchell case makes it clear that applications for relief from sanctions made after breach will be granted sparingly.  Here we consider the merits of making an application in advance of the date of breach.  WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL…

← Previous 1 … 23 24 25 … 27 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
In-House Webinar

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22,712 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FIRST SERVICE CASE OF THE YEAR: SERVING PROCEEDINGS IS NOT ALWAYS A WALK ON THE BEACH
  • LAW AND FLOODING: USEFUL GUIDES TO THE LAW AND PRACTICAL LINKS (2021)
  • AN INTERESTING CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: NO INTEREST AWARDED ON DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
  • SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT: INTERIM BILLS ARE NOT STATUTE BILLS
  • THE DANGER OF CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFERS: THE DEFENDANT CAN WAIT ONE DAY AND THEN PUT COSTS AT LARGE

Top Posts & Pages

  • FIRST SERVICE CASE OF THE YEAR: SERVING PROCEEDINGS IS NOT ALWAYS A WALK ON THE BEACH
  • THE DANGER OF CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: THE DEFENDANT CAN WAIT ONE DAY AND THEN PUT COSTS AT LARGE
  • LAW AND FLOODING: USEFUL GUIDES TO THE LAW AND PRACTICAL LINKS (2021)
  • AN INTERESTING CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: NO INTEREST AWARDED ON DAMAGES FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT
  • ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW SERIES 4: PART 2: GET TO THE POINT QUICKLY

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies.
To find out more, as well as how to remove or block these, see here: Our Cookie Policy

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin