Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login

Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers

Browse: Page 106
PROVING THINGS 101:A RECAP - THE FIRST 100 POSTS : WHEN BASIC MATTERS ARE JUST NOT PROVEN

PROVING THINGS 101:A RECAP – THE FIRST 100 POSTS : WHEN BASIC MATTERS ARE JUST NOT PROVEN

May 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

When I started this series I never anticipated it would run to 100 posts.   Up until last week I had planned to stop after 100.  However the Leeds Legal Walk served, inadvertently,  as a feedback session for this blog. Since…

PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: "A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY"

PROVING THINGS 100: IT IS DIFFICULT TO PROVE ANYTHING WHEN EVERYONE IS LYING: “A FESTIVAL OF MENDACITY”

May 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment  of Mr Justice Turner today in  Rashid v Munir & Ors [2018] EWHC 1258 (QB) illustrates the difficult task of the trial judge when all of the witnesses are strangers to the truth. “Attempting to establish the common but…

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS' CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

EXPERTS AS ADVOCATES FOR THE CLAIMANTS’ CAUSE: WITNESSES WHOSE EVIDENCE WAS VERY DIFFERENT TO THEIR WITNESS STATEMENTS

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment  of Mrs Justice Andrews today in Gee -v- Depuy International Ltd [2018] EWHC 1208. The judgment is 762 paragraphs long and will be widely read by…

PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT

PROVING THINGS 99: THE ROLE OF THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERTS: TRIAL JUDGE COULD PREFER VIEWS OF OTHER EXPERT

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The opinion of a single joint expert is not binding on the court.  This is clear from the judgment of Mr Justice Turner today in HJ v Burton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 1227 (QB)  “The opinion of a single…

PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)

PROVING THINGS 98: AN EASY AND OBVIOUS ROUTE TO REFUTE ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE (WHICH WAS NOT DONE)

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am returning to the decision of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB).  This time in the context of proving, or refuting, allegations of negligence.  There was a simple route by which the defendant could have…

BUNDLES: CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: CORE BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE DRAWS THANKS FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE

BUNDLES: CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE: CORE BUNDLE OF EVIDENCE DRAWS THANKS FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE

May 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

Most of the posts on bundles on this blog have been judges complaining about their quality or quantity.  It is worthwhile looking at the observations of Mr Justice Martin Spencer today in Lesforis v Tolias [2018] EWHC 1225 (QB) (of which…

PROVING THINGS 97:  AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT

PROVING THINGS 97: AN APPROACH THAT WAS UTTERLY FLAWED AND HOPELESSLY CARELESS: WHEN SOLICITORS LETTERS BECAME PART OF A PROCESS OF UNLAWFUL HARRASSMENT

May 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Worthington & Anor v Metropolitan Housing Trust Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1125 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that a housing association had unlawfully harassed its own tenants.  A major part of the problem came from the association’s highly…

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 4: A VIEW FROM THE CLERK'S BENCH: MANNERS MAKETH THE ADVOCATE

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 4: A VIEW FROM THE CLERK’S BENCH: MANNERS MAKETH THE ADVOCATE

May 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Civil evidence, Members Content

In this post I am recommending you read “The Art of Advocacy: Twenty Tips for your First Court Appearance”  a post on the “Survive Law” blog.  Unlike the other posts in these series this is written by Jennifer who was a…

PROVING THINGS 96: A WITNESS MAY NOT BE TELLING LIES - BUT THEIR MEMORY MAY WELL BE BIASED:  ASSESSING EVIDENCE WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT

PROVING THINGS 96: A WITNESS MAY NOT BE TELLING LIES – BUT THEIR MEMORY MAY WELL BE BIASED: ASSESSING EVIDENCE WHEN FRIENDS FALL OUT

May 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

One of the hardest tasks of litigation is trying to assess the credibility of a witness, particularly your own witness.  Litigants can (and often do) have strong views about the case and what they said and did.   The fact that…

I'M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT - BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT'S CASE

I’M NOT TAKING A PLEADING POINT – BUT: FAILURE TO PUT A POINT IN CROSS-EXAMINATION NOT FATAL TO CLAIMANT’S CASE

May 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

The judgment in Auckland v Khan & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1148  is in short form.  However it does illustrate the difficulties of appealing on “pleading points” and findings of fact. “There are certainly cases in which the failure to put…

60% OFF AT MORRISONS: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS ONLY RECOVER 40% OF THEIR COSTS: HIGH COURT DECISION

60% OFF AT MORRISONS: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANTS ONLY RECOVER 40% OF THEIR COSTS: HIGH COURT DECISION

May 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Various Claimants v WM Morrison Supermarkets Plc [2018] EWHC 1123 Mr Justice Langstaff held that the claimants’ conduct of the claim led to unnecessary costs being incurred. Consequentially the defendant was ordered to pay the claimants 40% of the…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY

May 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Witness statements

It is surprising how many witness statements I have read (both in practice and in the reports) that contain invective material.  Litigants appear to think it important, and effective, that they disparage their opponents.  Litigants should be warned that this…

STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE? WELL YOU MAY NOT BE: COURT ORDERS THAT MAY NOT COMPLY WITH COURT RULES

STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE? WELL YOU MAY NOT BE: COURT ORDERS THAT MAY NOT COMPLY WITH COURT RULES

May 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

When the rules committee re-introduced the concept of “automatic striking out” into the rules it was always going to cause problems. A case can be automatically struck out for failure to pay the trial fee in time.  However some Court…

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: BAD LEGAL ADVICE NOT A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW SERVICE BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: BAD LEGAL ADVICE NOT A GOOD REASON TO ALLOW SERVICE BY AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD

May 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Société Générale v Goldas Kuyumculuk Sanayi Ithalat Ihracat AS & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1093 the Court of Appeal considered a claimant’s appeal where the judge had refused to allow an alternative method of service or to dispense with service….

BELIEVING YOUR CLIENTS: CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF "TRUTH" AND "LIES": WHAT DOES THE LAWYER DO?

BELIEVING YOUR CLIENTS: CAN THEY AFFORD IT? THE COMPLEX ISSUE OF “TRUTH” AND “LIES”: WHAT DOES THE LAWYER DO?

May 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Book Review, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There are two sources for this post. The first is a blog by Lucy Reed on Pink Tape “It’s not my job to believe you – here’s why” ; the second is the judgment in  Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018. …

PROVING THINGS 95: OH... WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES...

PROVING THINGS 95: OH… WHY A COMBATIVE EXPERT WITNESS NEVER HELPS: LEAVE ADVOCACY TO THE ADVOCATES…

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Crown Office Chambers have a short post on their website that deals with the judgment in Ruffell -v- Lovatt HHJ Hughes 4 April 2018.  The post provides a link to the judgment itself.  The judgment is another example of a…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COULD BE ON THE NAUGHTY STEP

LITIGANTS IN PERSON & FREEDOM OF INFORMATION: MINISTRY OF JUSTICE COULD BE ON THE NAUGHTY STEP

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conduct, Members Content

Just to keep people up to date with the recent posts about the Ministry of Justice and the disclosure of the research in relation to litigants in person. The MOJ has now been reported to the Information Commissioner. A RECAP…

SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 4th JULY 2018:  YOU WON'T HAVE FAR TO TRAVEL

SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 4th JULY 2018: YOU WON’T HAVE FAR TO TRAVEL

May 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Damages, Members Content, Schedules

Following on from the recent post on drafting schedules and Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB)  I am presenting a webinar on schedules of damages on the 4th July 2018,  looking at these issues in more detail,…

FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT - EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES

FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT – EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES

May 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment today in  Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1063 (QB) illustrates the importance of taking adequate witness statements.  It shows that a failure to review the situation and take a full proof of evidence…

PROVING THINGS 94: : THE DEFENDANT WANTS TO CHOOSE BOTH THE CLAIMANT’S LITIGATION FRIEND AND SOLICITOR: EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT FAR FROM COMPELLING

May 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are some audacious applications. However an application by defendants  that attempts to dictate who the claimant’s  litigation friend should be, and who their solicitor should be, should – at the very least – be backed up by firm evidence. …

LITIGANTS IN PERSON: THE FULL STORY EMERGES: LITIGANTS IN PERSON COST THE JUSTICE SYSTEM MORE

May 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Conduct, Members Content

Last week I commented on Buzzfeed’s piece on research that the MOJ carried out on litigants in person.  After a freedom of information request the MOJ, reluctantly, handed over a six page summary of research it carried out on litigants…

MORE ON LAST MINUTE ADJOURNMENTS: SERIOUS CASES PULLED FROM THE LIST AT THE LAST MOMENT (AND CLAIMANTS HAVING TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF EXTENDING THE LISTING PERIOD)

May 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Listing, Members Content

I am continuing to collect issues relating to listing. Doing this by a serious of posts on the topic.  You can get a flavour of the problems by some of the issues raised on Twitter over the past few days. …

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 3:  THERE IS NO MIRACULOUS OSMOTIC PROCESS BY WHICH YOUR TRIBUNAL WILL  ABSORB EVERYTHING YOU HAVE PUT BEFORE IT

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 3: THERE IS NO MIRACULOUS OSMOTIC PROCESS BY WHICH YOUR TRIBUNAL WILL ABSORB EVERYTHING YOU HAVE PUT BEFORE IT

May 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Members Content

Today I am recommending you read the work of Judge Swami Raghaven in the Law Society Advocacy Section “Top tips for tribunal advocacy”. It is aimed at solicitors who conduct cases before tribunals. The article contains much of interest to…

PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW

PROVING THINGS 93: PROVING A WILL: THERE ARE SPECIFIC RULES THAT THE PARTIES SHOULD FOLLOW

May 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

I cannot remember the last time I read a case where the Court of Appeal heard evidence from witnesses (who had not been heard below) and made a request that it have sight of original documents.  This is what happened…

YOUR CLAIM FORM IS, WELL, PRETTY DAMN HOPELESS  - AND WITNESS EVIDENCE CAN'T PUT IT RIGHT

YOUR CLAIM FORM IS, WELL, PRETTY DAMN HOPELESS – AND WITNESS EVIDENCE CAN’T PUT IT RIGHT

May 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

The observations made by Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Orascom Tmt Investments SARL v Veon Ltd [2018] EWHC 985 (Comm) are of general interest.  They highlight the need for statements of case to be properly particularised and also highlight the dangerous…

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT "SEDLEY'S LAWS"

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 7: BUNDLES: A CHANCE TO REVISIT “SEDLEY’S LAWS”

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

If there is a league for blogs with the most number of  posts about bundles then Civil Litigation Brief may well be in the top 10 (sadly I suspect even in the top place). There is a reason for this….

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY "WISHFUL THINKING": £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

PROVING THINGS 92: WHERE THE CLAIM FOR DAMAGES WAS LARGELY “WISHFUL THINKING”: £1 MILLION CLAIM REDUCED TO £25,104 (OH & THROW IN A ERRANT EXPERT AS WELL)

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of John Martin QC (sitting as a High Court judge) in London College of Business Ltd v Tareem Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 437 (Ch) is a prime example of a failure to prove damages. The claim was…

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN "KNOWLEDGE" AND "BELIEF"? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN “KNOWLEDGE” AND “BELIEF”? A CASE AND A REVIEW OF 10 KEY POINTS

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has looked, many times, at the importance of giving the source of information and belief when a party (and particularly when a legal representative) makes a witness statement. It is sometimes possible for you opponent to attempt to…

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

JUDICIALLY REVIEWING THE COUNTY COURT: PROCEDURAL CONFUSION, UNPLEADED POINTS AND THE HIGH STANDARD TO BE MET WHEN ATTEMPTING TO JUDICIALLY REVIEW A COUNTY COURT DECISION

May 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

There are many matters of interest in the short judgment of Mr Justice Turner in Watkins, R (On the Application Of) v Newcastle Upon Tyne County Court [2018] EWHC 1029, a rare example of a party trying to judicially review a…

PROVING THINGS 91: HOW TELLING IS A "FIST BUMP"? A JUDGE NOTICES THINGS THAT GO ON OUTSIDE THE WITNESS BOX

PROVING THINGS 91: HOW TELLING IS A “FIST BUMP”? A JUDGE NOTICES THINGS THAT GO ON OUTSIDE THE WITNESS BOX

May 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There are a number of issues that arise in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in  the judgment today Clark v Farley & Anor [2018] EWHC 1007 (QB). It shows how how a defendant failed to prove its case and the…

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 2: MAXIMISING YOUR IMPACT AS AN ADVOCATE: REPUTATION IS ALL

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 2: MAXIMISING YOUR IMPACT AS AN ADVOCATE: REPUTATION IS ALL

May 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Members Content

In the second of this series we are going to Australia. More accurately to Queensland to look at the advice given by Fleur Kingham, President of the Land Court of Queensland.  The lecture was given in the QLS Modern Advocate…

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO A CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT FAILED TO GET PERMISSION TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED TO A CASE WHERE A CLAIMANT FAILED TO GET PERMISSION TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS

May 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Although the Denton principles are much more settled it is prudent to keep a weather eye on cases where they are considered. His Honour Judge Davis-White QC (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division in Leeds) applied the Denton principles in a…

HATS OFF TO BUZZFEED: GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ON LITIGANTS IN PERSON FINALLY "DISCLOSED" (IN A MANNER)

HATS OFF TO BUZZFEED: GOVERNMENT RESEARCH ON LITIGANTS IN PERSON FINALLY “DISCLOSED” (IN A MANNER)

April 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Members Content

This weekend I reported on the decision of District Judge Read that expressed profound concern about the fate of litigants of person in a family law case.  Hats off to BuzzFeed which, after a tussle and an appeal to the…

REDUCTION IN VALUE OF CLAIM AND REDUCTION IN HOURLY RATES DID NOT REPRESENT A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE BUDGET

April 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Jallow v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B7 (Costs) Master Rowley rejected an argument that  the settlement of a claim for a sum less than that claimed and a  reduction in hourly rates for incurred costs represented  “good reasons”…

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER:  PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT'S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

IDENTIFYING THE SUCCESSFUL PARTY AND MAKING A COSTS ORDER: PARTIALLY SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY 60% OF THE COSTS.

April 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Wall v Munday [2018] EWHC 879 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) allowed an appeal in relation to costs.  The judge at first instance had ordered the claimant to pay 80% of the defendant’s costs. That…

NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT

NO LUCK WHEN REACHING FOR THE SKY: LITIGANTS SEEKING A SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY FROM THE TRIAL JUDGE GET SHORT SHRIFT

April 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

In an earlier post about the case of P (A Child), Re [2018] EWCA Civ 720 we looked at an example where the parties (all the parties in the case) had correctly used the guidance in English v Emery Reimbold and Strick Ltd [2002]…

"UNSATISFACTORY IN TERMS OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY, PREPARATION, PROCESS AND OUTCOME": WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AWAY

“UNSATISFACTORY IN TERMS OF PROCEDURAL HISTORY, PREPARATION, PROCESS AND OUTCOME”: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU TAKE LEGAL REPRESENTATION AWAY

April 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Advocacy, Members Content

John Vater QC, writing on Twitter, has – rightly- categorised the District Judge Read as a “hero”.  When giving judgment in JY v RY [2018] EWFC B16 the judge made a number of telling observations about the profound implications of lack…

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS AND LATE EVIDENCE: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BETTER: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION: A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO SAY AND DO

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS AND LATE EVIDENCE: THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD DO BETTER: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION: A TEXTBOOK EXAMPLE OF WHAT NOT TO SAY AND DO

April 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In The National Council for Civil Liberties (Liberty), R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for the Home Department & Anor (Procedural Matters) [2018] HC 976 (Admin) the Divisional Court took care to file a supplemental judgment that dealt…

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE'S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 1:  THERE IS A SPECIAL RING IN HELL FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF ADVOCATE (& YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)

ADVOCACY: THE JUDGE’S VIEW SERIES 3: PART 1: THERE IS A SPECIAL RING IN HELL FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF ADVOCATE (& YOU KNOW WHO YOU ARE)

April 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

I had no plans for a further series on judge’s advice advocacy. However my hand was forced. I had to share the talk given by Lord Justice Irwin given to the Professional Negligence Bar Association on the 17th April. It…

VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS:  EXISTING GUIDANCE AND THE IICSA RECOMMENDATIONS

VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: EXISTING GUIDANCE AND THE IICSA RECOMMENDATIONS

April 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Advocacy, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The criminal and family courts have developed sophisticated methods for dealing with vulnerable witnesses.  There is relatively little guidance in the civil courts. This was an issue noted yesterday in the interim report of Independent Inquiry Child Sex Abuse. Here…

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER

April 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

This post is caused by some comments on Twitter this evening. A surprising number of cases where parties have, by one method or other, disclosed a Part 36 offer. This has been done by including the offers in the trial…

A JUDGMENT ADJOURNING A TRIAL: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY;  THE TRIAL BUNDLE DID NOT HAVE THE KEY DOCUMENT (AND MORE)

A JUDGMENT ADJOURNING A TRIAL: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT KNOW WHETHER THE ACTION WAS NECESSARY; THE TRIAL BUNDLE DID NOT HAVE THE KEY DOCUMENT (AND MORE)

April 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Mediation, Members Content

The short judgment of Mr Justice Holman in Matthews v Matthews & Anor [2018] EWHC 906 (Fam) looks like a family case. However it is an inheritance claim and contains some surprising revelations. KEY POINTS If you are asking a judge…

NEW INSOLVENCY PRACTICE DIRECTION: CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: WATCH OUT FOR THIS

NEW INSOLVENCY PRACTICE DIRECTION: CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: WATCH OUT FOR THIS

April 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Rule Changes

I am grateful to barrister Simon Bradshaw for pointing out that there is a new Practice Direction in force in relation to insolvency procedure.  This was introduced today and comes into effect immediately. CHANGES The PD now refers to the…

SERENDIPITY AND THE SECRET BARRISTER: A TALE OF TWO T-SHIRTS

April 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Contest, Charity,, Members Content

I was reminded yesterday that many of the people who read this blog do not have Twitter. They will not therefore know the result of the Secret Barrister T-shirt auction. A tale of high drama, contractual confusion,  and eventual salvation …

SERVICE ON INSURER ALLOWED WHEN DRIVER COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED: FACT THAT INSURER HAD AN ORDER DECLARING THE POLICY VOID NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE

SERVICE ON INSURER ALLOWED WHEN DRIVER COULD NOT BE IDENTIFIED: FACT THAT INSURER HAD AN ORDER DECLARING THE POLICY VOID NOT RELEVANT TO THIS ISSUE

April 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Farah v Abdullahi & Ors [2018] EWHC 738 (QB) Master Davison rejected an application by an insurer to set aside an order that allowed service of an unnamed driver upon the insurer.  It was irrelevant that the insurer had obtained…

LEAVE TO APPEAL, APPEAL NOTICES AND THE NEED TO APPLY TO AMEND: COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS CRUCIAL: KNOW THE RULES

April 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Hickey v The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions [2018] EWCA Civ 851 the Court of Appeal set out, in categorical terms, that parties should comply with the provisions relating to permission to appeal. In particular a party cannot…

UNREASONABLE FAILURE TO USE PROTOCOL WILL LEAD TO FIXED COSTS BEING AWARDED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: CPR 44 RULES THE DAY

UNREASONABLE FAILURE TO USE PROTOCOL WILL LEAD TO FIXED COSTS BEING AWARDED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: CPR 44 RULES THE DAY

April 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

In Williams v The Secretary of State for Business, Energy & Industrial Strategy [2018] EWCA Civ 852 the Court of Appeal considered the issue of the personal injury protocol and fixed costs.  It was held that CPR 44 has sufficient width…

THE SECRET BARRISTER: YOU'VE READ THE BOOK NOW GET THE (SIGNED) T-SHIRT: AUCTION FOR CHARITY

THE SECRET BARRISTER: YOU’VE READ THE BOOK NOW GET THE (SIGNED) T-SHIRT: AUCTION FOR CHARITY

April 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Contest, Charity,, Members Content

It is rare for a book about law to hit the best seller lists.  It is even rarer for a law book to have merchandising. The Secret Barrister’s book, however, has produced a limited number of T-Shirts.  To raise money…

PROVING THINGS 90 :  THE TATTOO ARTIST & THE CACTUS SHOP: PRICK ME ONE MORE TIME

PROVING THINGS 90 : THE TATTOO ARTIST & THE CACTUS SHOP: PRICK ME ONE MORE TIME

April 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

The opportunities for puns arising out of the issues in Martinez (t/a Prick) & Anor v Prick Me Baby One More Time Ltd (t/a Prick) & Anor [2018] EWHC 776 (IPEC) are obvious (and indeed are mentioned in the judgment itself)….

THE JUDGMENT IN ALI -v- CHANNEL 5 3: WHY A DEFENDANT SHOULD ALWAYS FILE A COSTS BUDGET:  A REMINDER OF THE RULES

THE JUDGMENT IN ALI -v- CHANNEL 5 3: WHY A DEFENDANT SHOULD ALWAYS FILE A COSTS BUDGET: A REMINDER OF THE RULES

April 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Part 36

The final part of this trilogy on the judgment today in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 840 (Ch) shows why the defendant will be kicking themselves for not filing a costs budget.   Some defendants are fairly…

← Previous 1 … 105 106 107 … 151 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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • DOES AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AMOUNT TO A “STEP IN THE ACTION” SO THAT AN ARBITRATION CLAUSE IS DISPLACED? AN IMPORTANT QUESTION CONSIDERED ON APPEAL
  • WHEN POSSIBLE FRAUDULENT CONDUCT EMERGES – CAN A SOLICITOR SIMPLY CARRY ON AS BEFORE? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED
  • CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1ST OCTOBER 2026: HOUSING LAWYERS BE AWARE…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 95: THE DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENT THAT THE JUDGE HAD AWARDED THE CLAIMANTS MORE THAN THEIR PLEADED CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 72: THE DEFENDANT HAD LEFT IT TOO LATE TO OBJECT TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EXPERT EVIDENCE: THIS SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT TRIAL NOT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WAIVING LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE BY MENTIONING IT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS
THE SRA CANNOT COMPEL A SOLICITOR TO DISCLOSE A CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE

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.