Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Statements of Case » Page 6

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…

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…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT AGAIN: MCTEAR CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

March 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Striking out, Witness statements

The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] EWHC 722 (Ch) was looked at briefly in  an earlier post in relation to the number of cases cited to the Court.  Here we look at the substantive decision in relation to applications…

WHAT WOULD THE SUPREME COURT THINK ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO PROCEDURE? CLUES FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL?

March 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Striking out

The Mitchell case was not appealed.  Practitioners have no clue as to the approach of the Supreme Court to matters of procedure. However a decision of the Privy Council on the 3rd March makes interesting reading as to potential construction…

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND AMENDING PLEADINGS: A NEW CASE TO CONSIDER

March 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

I have added the case of Hague Plant Ltd -v- Hague [2014] EWHC 568 (Ch) to the “Mitchell Watch” section. It concerned a second application to amend the Particulars of Claim in a complex and long running commercial case.  I will…

← Previous 1 … 5 6

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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • USING WHATSAPP AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENTS: THE RISKS CONSIDERED
  • COST BITES 319: WHATSAPP MESSAGES CAN FORM PART OF A SOLICITOR’S FILE: THE DEFENDANT FIRM WAS, THEREFORE, IN BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER
  • REVIEW OF THE YEAR (4): CLAIM FORM ISSUES – SERVING ON A SOLICITOR WHEN YOU CAN’T AND WHEN YOU MUST: THIS OFTEN CAUSES PROBLEMS…
  • “HALLUCINATIONS” IS NOT A GOOD WORD FOR FALSE CASES GENERATED BY AI: THIS JEOPARDISES THE RULE OF LAW: LESSONS FROM THE COURTS OF OREGON
  • COST BITES 318: PART 36 ISSUES: DOES AN AGREEMENT ON DAMAGES AFTER TRIAL MEAN THAT THE NORMAL PART 36 CONSEQUENCES DO NOT APPLY?

Top Posts

  • COST BITES 319: WHATSAPP MESSAGES CAN FORM PART OF A SOLICITOR'S FILE: THE DEFENDANT FIRM WAS, THEREFORE, IN BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER
  • USING WHATSAPP AND OTHER MEANS OF COMMUNICATION WITH CLIENTS: THE RISKS CONSIDERED
  • REVIEW OF THE YEAR (4): CLAIM FORM ISSUES - SERVING ON A SOLICITOR WHEN YOU CAN'T AND WHEN YOU MUST: THIS OFTEN CAUSES PROBLEMS...
  • SUSPECTED HALLUCINATED QUOTATIONS IN A HIGH PROFILE JUDGMENT: IF THIS IS CORRECT THEN A LINE HAS BEEN CROSSED...
  • "HALLUCINATIONS" IS NOT A GOOD WORD FOR FALSE CASES GENERATED BY AI: THIS JEOPARDISES THE RULE OF LAW: LESSONS FROM THE COURTS OF OREGON

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, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop