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

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

Browse: Page 108
SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO 100% SUCCESS FEE UPHELD ON APPEAL: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

SUCCESSFUL CHALLENGE TO 100% SUCCESS FEE UPHELD ON APPEAL: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENT OF COSTS

March 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In  Herbert v HH Law Ltd [2018] EWHC 580 (QB) Mr Justice Soole refused a solicitor’s appeal against a decision reducing the success fee from 100% to 15%.  This is a very important decision for claimant personal injury lawyers who, habitually,…

COURT WATCH: DON'T SUFFER IN SILENCE: REPORT CANCELLATIONS AND LISTING ISSUES HERE

COURT WATCH: DON’T SUFFER IN SILENCE: REPORT CANCELLATIONS AND LISTING ISSUES HERE

March 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There have been constant, and consistent, grumblings on social media about problems with court listing. Cases are cancelled at the last moment. Courts are overbooked. There appears to be no, or very little, thought given to the expense involved and…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A  DUTY ON A DEFENDANT'S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A DUTY ON A DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

March 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It was unlikely that the decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 would put an end to all issues relating to service of the claim form.  There is a tantalising judgment* of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW: SERIES 2 PART 8: EFFECTIVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: "FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT" & THE "CHUNKIFICATION" OF ARGUMENTS

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW: SERIES 2 PART 8: EFFECTIVE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: “FIRST IMPRESSIONS COUNT” & THE “CHUNKIFICATION” OF ARGUMENTS

March 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Members Content, Written advocacy

This series certainly takes us around the globe.  Here I am looking at a paper written by Justice Susan Glazebrook, a judge of the Supreme Court of New Zealand. Her paper on “Effective written submissions” written in 2014. As always…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : A CLASSIC CASE FOR RELIEF TO BE GRANTED: NOTICE TO PROVE SERVED LATE

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : A CLASSIC CASE FOR RELIEF TO BE GRANTED: NOTICE TO PROVE SERVED LATE

March 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Tuke v JD Classics Ltd [2018] EWHC 531 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles granted a claimant relief from sanctions when a “Notice to Prove” was served late.  It is a reminder, amongst other things, of the need to serve a…

THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS JUST ABOUT TO EXPIRE AND YOU ARE NOT READY:  FIVE KEY POINTS FOR WHEN YOU DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH

THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS JUST ABOUT TO EXPIRE AND YOU ARE NOT READY: FIVE KEY POINTS FOR WHEN YOU DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH

March 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

No matter how hard litigators try (and how many warnings are given) it appears inevitable that, sooner or later, you are going to have a case where the limitation period is about to expire but you are not ready.  The…

QOCS IN HYBRID CASES: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO FULL EXTENT OF QOCS PROTECTION: ORDERED TO PAY 25% OF THE COSTS

QOCS IN HYBRID CASES: CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO FULL EXTENT OF QOCS PROTECTION: ORDERED TO PAY 25% OF THE COSTS

March 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content

In  the judgment today in Siddiqui v University of Oxford [2018] EWHC 536 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered an issue as to costs where the claim brought was partially a personal injury claim.   The judge held that the claim, for…

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS' APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

March 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Sean Linley of PIC costings for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgement in Surrey -v- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 451.  This is the latest in the…

DELAY IN GETTING TO TRIAL - AND ITS NOT THE COURT'S FAULT: COUNSEL'S AVAILABILITY AND DELAYS - A REMINDER OF THE JIGSAW PROBLEM...

DELAY IN GETTING TO TRIAL – AND ITS NOT THE COURT’S FAULT: COUNSEL’S AVAILABILITY AND DELAYS – A REMINDER OF THE JIGSAW PROBLEM…

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is often much criticism about the length of time it takes to obtain a trial date. The observations of Mr Justice Fraser in  Dacy Building Services Ltd v IDM Properties LLP [2018] EWHC 178 (TCC) indicate that it is not…

LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE CLAIMANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF FUNDING AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THIS DOES NOT END WELL FOR THE CLAIMANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

In the judgment today in Springer v University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 436 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that refused to give relief from sanctions following late service of notice of funding.  The case shows…

HOURLY RATES, INCURRED COSTS AND THE COST BUDGET:  AGREED BUDGETS HAVE NO SPECIAL STATUS: HOURLY RATES NOT A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE BUDGET

HOURLY RATES, INCURRED COSTS AND THE COST BUDGET: AGREED BUDGETS HAVE NO SPECIAL STATUS: HOURLY RATES NOT A GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE BUDGET

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The judgment of Master Nagalingam in  Nash v Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC B4 (Costs) covers several issues relating to costs budgets. The Master found that a reduction in hourly rates in relation to incurred costs did not lead to any…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Written advocacy

The Administrative Court Clerks Users Group has sent out an email to many chambers in relation to the format of skeleton arguments.  If you did not receive this it is worth reading. THE EMAIL: SIZE AND FONTS OF SKELETON ARGUMENTS…

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber in Clarke v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2018] UKFTT 123 (TC). Here we look at two particular parts of the judgment: (i) the relevance of reliance on an…

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 7: HOW TO WIN YOUR CASE: GUIDANCE FROM SCOTLAND

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 7: HOW TO WIN YOUR CASE: GUIDANCE FROM SCOTLAND

March 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

This series looks at guidance on advocacy given by judges.  We have looked at advice given from judges around the globe. Today we go to Scotland. The Lord President’s address to the Faculty of Advocates in an event to mark…

LITIGANTS IN PERSON: SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAW AS EVERYBODY ELSE (BUT CASE MANAGEMENT DIRECTIONS MAY BE DIFFERENT)

March 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Litigants in person, Members Content

The judgment in  Reynard v Fox [2018] EWHC 443 (Ch) has already been written about in the legal press.  Indeed it bristles with procedural issues, I want to concentrate on the issue of the treatment of litigants in person.   THE…

PARTIES MUST OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR A HEARING OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: (MORE ON LENGTHY SKELETON ARGUMENTS)

PARTIES MUST OBTAIN AN ORDER FOR A HEARING OF A PRELIMINARY ISSUE: (MORE ON LENGTHY SKELETON ARGUMENTS)

March 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Members Content, Written advocacy

In Bokova v Associated Newspapers Ltd [2018] EWHC 320 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans considered several important issues of procedure.   Firstly the need for parties to obtain an order for a hearing on a preliminary issue rather than simply turning up on…

HOW A COURT ASSESSES WITNESS EVIDENCE: A SHORT PRIMER

March 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

We have already looked at the decision of the upper tribunal in Conegate Ltd v Revenue & Customs (CAPITAL GAINS TAX – purchase of shares) [2018] UKFTT 82 (TC) in relation to issues of privilege and without prejudice discussions.  The same judgment…

PROVING THINGS 87: FAILURE TO PROVE BASIC ELEMENTS MEANT THAT THE FULL PREMIUM WAS NOT RECOVERED

PROVING THINGS 87: FAILURE TO PROVE BASIC ELEMENTS MEANT THAT THE FULL PREMIUM WAS NOT RECOVERED

March 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Costs, Insurance, Insurance premiums, Members Content

I am grateful to Dominic Regan for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Baldwin in Nicolaou -v- Cass (Liverpool CC 1st November 2017).   The claimant failed to recover a substantial figure for a stage 2 premium…

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO SOLICITORS' COSTS: INTEREST SET ASIDE, PRINCIPAL SUM REMAINS A DEBT

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT IN RELATION TO SOLICITORS’ COSTS: INTEREST SET ASIDE, PRINCIPAL SUM REMAINS A DEBT

March 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Interest, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

In RS v LS & LMP [2018] EWHC 449 (Fam)  Mrs Justice Roberts considered an application to set aside a default judgment obtained in relation to a solicitor’s costs. There are issues in relation to a failure to serve the response…

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…

← Previous 1 … 107 108 109 … 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.