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
COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

March 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

A post in 2015 looked at the decision in In Christofi -v- National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB) Mrs Justice Andrews DBE held that there were very limited grounds for extending time in an appeal against the registration of…

WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS & WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: TAXING MATTERS

WITHOUT PREJUDICE COMMUNICATIONS & WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: TAXING MATTERS

March 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

A post earlier this week looked at the issue of privilege and the third edition of the standard work on the topic.  It is worthwhile looking at the decision in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase…

STRESS, LITIGATION AND LAWYERS: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE

STRESS, LITIGATION AND LAWYERS: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE

March 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have blogged on stress and the litigation process several times.  This is because there are close links to the work I do on relief from sanctions. Being involved in a case where there is default inevitably causes stress. Further…

LITIGATORS - MISSED A DEADLINE? DON'T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

LITIGATORS – MISSED A DEADLINE? DON’T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

March 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Jackson, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision in Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 may well be Jackson L.J’s last judgment (certainly as a full time judge). It concerned the conduct of solicitors. I want to look at one aspect…

SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE

SIR RUPERT JACKSON ON THE DAY OF HIS RETIREMENT: A REVIEW OF SOME JUDGMENTS ON PROCEDURE

March 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements, Written advocacy

It is well known that Sir Rupert Jackson retires on the 7th March.  There are several reviews of the work Sir Rupert has done in re-shaping civil procedure.  Here I want to look at a few of his judgments that…

A PRIVILEGE TO READ : THE LAW OF PRIVILEGE 3rd EDITION: COUPLED WITH SOME RECENT EXAMPLES - TO SHOW WHY YOU NEED IT

A PRIVILEGE TO READ : THE LAW OF PRIVILEGE 3rd EDITION: COUPLED WITH SOME RECENT EXAMPLES – TO SHOW WHY YOU NEED IT

March 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Book Review, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The Law of Privilege is now in its third edition.  I have been reading through it and planning a review for some time. I came across the decision, on BAILLI today in Fleming v East of England Ambulance Service NHS Trust…

“MISSING WITNESSES”- THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN: THE USE OF YOUR OPPONENT’S WITNESS STATEMENTS – ITS ALL OR NOTHING

March 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Property Alliance Group Ltd v The Royal Bank of Scotland Plc [2018] EWCA Civ 355 the Court of Appeal considered, amongst other things, two issues relating to witness evidence.  Firstly in relation to the inferences a court should draw from missing…

COSTS ON APPEAL - TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

COSTS ON APPEAL – TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

March 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

An earlier post dealt with the substantive decision in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017).   A short supplementary judgment dealt with two issues as to costs. KEY POINTS The fact that a party did not have a…

THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: HOW DOES ANYONE MISS IT?

THE THREE YEAR LIMITATION PERIOD: HOW DOES ANYONE MISS IT?

March 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

This blog has covered numerous cases relating to Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. It is worthwhile considering what causes a lawyer to miss a basic three year limitation period.  In In Greater Manchester Police v Carroll [2017] EWCA Civ 1992 the…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 3: A JUDGMENT FROM TODAY: CREDIBILITY A CENTRAL PART OF THE CASE

March 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Arbitration,, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This is the third post today about the subject of the assessment of witness credibility. By a curious piece of good planning it comes from a judgment today in  Jiangsu Shagang Group Co Ltd v Loki Owning Company Ltd [2018] EWHC…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 2: ACADEMIC SCRUTINY: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND WITNESS EVIDENCE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 2: ACADEMIC SCRUTINY: PSYCHOLOGICAL RESEARCH AND WITNESS EVIDENCE

March 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Near the beginning of many judgments after a trial there is a section where the judge gives their view of the reliability and credibility of the witnesses. In about 98% of cases it is not necessary to read further to…

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE

WITNESS CREDIBILITY 1: A STRUCTURED APPROACH: DEMEANOUR NOT DETERMINATIVE

March 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has looked at issues relating to witness credibility on many occasions.  Here we look at a decision by the Upper Tribunal in  KB & AH (credibility-structured approach : Pakistan) [2017] UKUT 491 (IAC). This is of general interest.  Issues…

TIME ESTIMATES: PROBLEMS WHEN THE ESTIMATES ARE TOO SHORT: STILL LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE

TIME ESTIMATES: PROBLEMS WHEN THE ESTIMATES ARE TOO SHORT: STILL LOOKING FOR GUIDANCE

February 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Members Content

I have been searching (so far unsuccessfully) for guidance to litigators and litigants to help provide accurate time estimates.  This may well be more of an art than a science. However it is a skill that needs honing. Not only…

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN?  HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN? HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

February 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36

In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered the impact of a Part 36 offer that had been withdrawn. He overturned an order that the claimant should pay the costs from the date…

ATTENDING A HMCTS REFORM ROADSHOW: "JUSTICE BY SNAPCHAT"?

ATTENDING A HMCTS REFORM ROADSHOW: “JUSTICE BY SNAPCHAT”?

February 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Litigants in person, Members Content, Rule Changes

There have been a  series of HMCTS Reform Roadshows throughout the country. These are discussing reforms to courts and tribunals. Discussing “Virtual Hearings”; “Flexible Operating Hours” and “Scheduling and Listing”  I attended the Roadshow in Leeds. I made notes.  This…

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Another week, another case about service of the claim form. This time the claimant was more successful. In DDM v Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors [2018] EWHC 346 (QB). Mr Justice Foskett allowed an appeal against a Master’s decision setting aside…

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

February 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270 the Court of Appeal considered an important issue in relation to Qualified One Costs Shifting. What order should be made when the claimant has QOCS protection against some of…

PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: YOU CAN'T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT: THE COURT'S APPROACH WHEN THE COSTS SCHEDULES ARE "EYE-WATERING"

PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: YOU CAN’T ALWAYS GET WHAT YOU WANT: THE COURT’S APPROACH WHEN THE COSTS SCHEDULES ARE “EYE-WATERING”

February 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

In Dana Gas PJSC v Dana Gas Sukuk Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 332 (Comm) Lord Justice Leggatt considered the principles relating to payments on account of costs.  In particular the approach the court should take when there were weighty commercial…

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS

SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT IN A NEGLIGENCE ACTION AGAINST SOLICITORS

February 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Summary judgment

I am grateful to my colleague at Hardwicke, Laurence Page, for sending me a transcript of the judgment of District Judge Langley in the case of Wright -v- Rix & Kay Solicitors, Central London County Court, 30/11/2017 (available here Wrighttranscript)….

EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME "AGENDAS"

EXPERTS: THE JOINT REPORT AND THOSE TROUBLESOME “AGENDAS”

February 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are several passages in the judgment of Mrs Justice Yip in  David John Saunders  -v- Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 343 (QB) that highlight a common problem with joint reports.  That is the problematic “agenda”. A …

THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: DECLARATIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE: DECLARATIONS FOR THE DEFENDANT IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE

February 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Master Thornett in  Day v Bryant (declaratory relief – costs – QOCS) [2018] EWHC 158 (QB) is an example of a rare case where a defendant, in a personal injury case, obtained a declaration on a counterclaim. It…

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2018

AVOIDING PROBLEMS WITH SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WEBINAR 14th MARCH 2018

February 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Useful links

The judgment yesterday in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12  shows how crucial correct service of the claim form can be.  There are dozens of examples on this blog  of  cases where service with the claim form goes wrong. In an…

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

We looked at the decision in  Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16) in an earlier post.  The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal  Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018]…

12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW

12 POINTS RELATING TO SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THINGS THAT YOU REALLY, REALLY, NEED TO KNOW

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Today is all about service of the claim form. Following on from the Supreme Court decision in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12  this morning this is a good time to update your knowledge about basic points of procedure. TWELVE…

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It is rare for issues relating to procedure to reach the Supreme Court. The judgment today in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned the issue of correct service of the claim form.  The claimant lost the appeal (albeit…

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal in Barton -v- Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12.  Service by email on a solicitor who had not confirmed they would accept service was not good service. A claimant would not be granted any…

EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE'S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS

EXPERT EVIDENCE AS TO EARNINGS NOT NECESSARY (THOUGH NOT A CIVIL CASE): ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE IS THE JUDGE’S JOB NOT THE EXPERTS

February 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Experts, Members Content

I am trespassing into the area of family law to look at decision of Mr Justice Moor in Buehrlen v Buehrlen [2017] EWHC 3643 (Fam). It is of general interest to civil lawyers because it involves the court considering whether expert…

PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: "ACADEMIC" ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING

PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: “ACADEMIC” ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING

February 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In London Borough of Haringey v Simawi [2018] EWHC 290 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklen expressly considered the Overriding Objective when determining whether a human rights  issue that could be rendered “academic” should continue to a hearing. “Those rules are directed at…

PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE

PROVING THINGS 86: CLAIMANTS PROVE THE FACTS BUT FAIL TO PROVE CAUSATION: A SALUTARY TALE

February 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Experts, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Witness statements

The decision of His Honour Judge Simpkiss in O’Neill -v- Bull & Bull* (Canterbury County Court 5th February 2018) is an almost classical example of the need to prove things. It also provides a warning to non-contentious lawyers on the…

ANONYMOUS WITNESSES AND CONFIDENTIALITY CLUBS: HIGH COURT DECISION

ANONYMOUS WITNESSES AND CONFIDENTIALITY CLUBS: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content

In Kalma & Ors v African Minerals Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 120 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the issue of anonymous witnesses and confidentiality clubs. He granted six witnesses anonymity. This was subject to the identity of the witnesses being…

INTERPLEADER PROCEEDINGS: FILLING THE GAP IN THE RULES

INTERPLEADER PROCEEDINGS: FILLING THE GAP IN THE RULES

February 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Enforcement, Members Content

In Celador Radio Ltd v Rancho Steak House Ltd (Equitable Interpleader – Enforcement) [2018] EWHC 219 (QB) Master McCloud had to look back at a few centuries of jurisprudence in order to find a solution to a very modern problem. What…

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

February 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In  Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert found that the six year contractual limitation period ran from the date of completion of work and not the date of invoice.   A…

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

The case of Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210 is one that needs to be read with great care.  A defendant who made a voluntary interim payment after making a Part 36 offer. The effect of this was…

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

We are looking again at the decision in  Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190     This was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act since the decision in Carroll v Chief…

THE COURT "REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED" EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THE COURT “REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED” EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Proportionality

In Ogale Community & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 191 the Court of Appeal made observations about the need to keep applications about jurisdiction in proportion.  “… hearings concerning the issue of appropriate forum should…

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

I used to write a section/chapter on limitation in a legal looseleaf.  The part on “date of knowledge” was, of course, my favourite*.  Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 has led to many cases in relation to date of…

A "PART 36 OFFER" THAT ATTEMPTS TO VARY USUAL COSTS CONSEQUENCES IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER AT ALL:  HIGH COURT DECISION

A “PART 36 OFFER” THAT ATTEMPTS TO VARY USUAL COSTS CONSEQUENCES IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER AT ALL: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

In James v James & Ors [2018] EWHC 242 (Ch)  HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) determined an interesting issue in relation to an offer made in the course of proceedings.  A “Part 36” offer which attempted to…

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

February 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

An interesting point arose in the Court of Appeal decision today in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190.  When a party seeks permission to appeal from the trial judge – can the other party make submissions in…

LIMITATION: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS TO RUN ON DAY CAUSE OF ACTION BEGINS

LIMITATION: WHAT A DIFFERENCE A DAY MAKES: LIMITATION PERIOD STARTS TO RUN ON DAY CAUSE OF ACTION BEGINS

February 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Limitation, Members Content, Summary judgment

In Matthew & Ors v Sedman & Ors [2017] EWHC 3527 (Ch) His Honour Judge Hodge QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) had to consider an interesting issue in relation to limitation.  “… where it is absolutely clear…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: INACCURATE STATEMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS DISHONEST:  NO "SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE"

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: INACCURATE STATEMENT OF MEDICAL TREATMENT WAS DISHONEST: NO “SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE”

February 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

One of the many complex issues that Mrs Justice Cockerill considered in Razumas v Ministry of Justice [2018] EWHC 215 (QB) today was the question of fundamental dishonesty.  The claimant gave a misleading account of medical treatment. He was found to…

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE "DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE “DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Costs, Members Content

The previous post looked at the Court of Appeal decision today in Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101.   A third element of that judgment was the defendant’s successful appeal against the costs of a committal application.   The Court held…

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

In Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101 today the Court of Appeal overturned a decision discussed on this blog in 2015.  The Court found that a judge should have granted a defendant an adjournment on ill-health grounds. He…

WITNESS EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS: GESTMIN CONSIDERED IN THE SUPREME COURT

February 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Disclosure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Bancoult, R (on the application of) (No 3) v Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Respondent)[2018] UKSC 3 the Supreme Court considered the “Gestmin” principles.  There are several aspectse of the judgment. Here we look at the judgment…

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT'S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT’S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content

Earlier this week I paid tribute to Sir Henry Brooke. This included his most recent work dealing with PIPs and ESAs.  He wrote in his blog: “Readers  of these blogs will know I have been telling stories of the injustices…

GOBBETS AND LIMITATION:  ISSUES AT THE DREAMING SPIRES

GOBBETS AND LIMITATION: ISSUES AT THE DREAMING SPIRES

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content

There are many fascinating aspects of the judgment in Siddiqui v The Chancellor, Masters & Scholars of the University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 184 (QB). As  is often the case I have chosen to concentrate on one of  the most prosaic…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 the Court of Appeal upheld the early decisions that lawyers, who worked outside the terms of their retainer under a CFA, could not recover costs from the unsuccessful party….

90% WAS A GENUINE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT: CLAIMANT RECEIVES PART 36 BENEFITS AFTER OFFERING A 10% DISCOUNT

90% WAS A GENUINE OFFER OF SETTLEMENT: CLAIMANT RECEIVES PART 36 BENEFITS AFTER OFFERING A 10% DISCOUNT

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

In   the judgment today in JMX (A child by his Mother and Litigation Friend, FMX) v Norfolk and Norwich Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 185 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett was very robust in his view that an offer of…

PROPORTIONALITY: A LITIGATOR'S SURVIVAL GUIDE  VI: COULD PROJECT MANAGEMENT HELP?

PROPORTIONALITY: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE VI: COULD PROJECT MANAGEMENT HELP?

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Members Content

This series on proportionality for litigators is a long-running one.  One suggestion is that “Legal project management” could help.  There is a very short entry in Wikipedia as to what “Legal project management” is. LEGAL PROJECT MANAGEMENT I put questions to…

WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREATING AN ACCURATE RECORD OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT AT WORK: SPOT - AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT

WITNESS EVIDENCE: CREATING AN ACCURATE RECORD OF INAPPROPRIATE CONDUCT AT WORK: SPOT – AN IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENT

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I have written before about the book The Memory Illusion. In essence  lawyers need to be concerned about how easy it is for false memories to be created and how fallible the human memory is. The creation of an inaccurate…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: INFORMED CONSENT NOT GIVEN: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: INFORMED CONSENT NOT GIVEN: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

February 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

There are many posts on this blog about how, ultimately, many clinical negligence cases turn on the issue of what was said. Liability often depends on which account of a conversation the trial judge prefers.  This can be seen in stark…

← Previous 1 … 105 106 107 … 148 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

  • GIVING AN UNDERTAKING AS TO DAMAGES WHEN OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION: REMEMBER IT CAN COME BACK TO BITE (AND SOMETIMES BITE HARD…)
  • CAN DELAY IN APPLYING TO STRIKE OUT AN ACTION FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS BE AN ABUSE OF PROCESS IN ITSELF? THE DANGERS OF LETTING TIME GO BY
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SIMILAR FACT EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES: AN OVERVIEW AND THE RELEVANT GUIDANCE CONSIDERED (AUGUST 2020)
  • AN ORDER FOR WASTED COSTS NARROWLY AVERTED – BUT THERE WERE ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES: “NONE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS CASE HAVE COVERED THEMSELVES WITH GLORY”
  • ATTEMPTS TO “REVISIT” THE PRELIMINARY ISSUES REFUSED: ALSO THE JUDGE WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO SEE WITNESS STATEMENTS NOT JUST DOCUMENTS…

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S SUCCESSFUL APPEAL AGAINST THE STRIKING OUT OF A CASE BECAUSE A WITNESS STATEMENT HAD NOT BEEN PROVIDED: THE SMALL CLAIMS PROTOCOL IS (VERY) DIFFERENT...
AN ORDER FOR WASTED COSTS NARROWLY AVERTED - BUT THERE WERE ISSUES ON BOTH SIDES: "NONE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSIONALS IN THIS CASE HAVE COVERED THEMSELVES WITH GLORY"
FAILING TO GIVE THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: THE JUDGE MAY THINK THAT THERE IS SOMETHING FISHY GOING ON HERE...
ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW A RECAP OF THE SERIES 3: "THERE IS A SPECIAL RING IN HELL FOR A CERTAIN TYPE OF ADVOCATE": WHY ALL LITIGATORS SHOULD KNOW THESE THINGS...
COST BITES 432: THE COURT CANNOT ALTER THE COSTS BUDGET UNLESS THERE ARE "SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS" : HIGH COURT DECISION

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.