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

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

Browse: Page 117
WITNESSES, MUSIC AND RECOLLECTION: WHEN RADIO INTERVIEWS COME BACK AND THINGS ARE NOT ALRIGHT

WITNESSES, MUSIC AND RECOLLECTION: WHEN RADIO INTERVIEWS COME BACK AND THINGS ARE NOT ALRIGHT

May 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Members Content, Witness statements

I am looking for an excuse to blog about the decision of Judge Hacon in Editions Musicales Alpha S.A.R.L -v- Universal Music Publishing Limited [2017] EWHC 1058 (IPEC).  The case shows something about witness evidence (a composer “forgot” he had agreed…

WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE

WHEN IS AN EXPERT NEEDED? NOT HERE

May 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

CPR 35. imposes a duty on the court to restrict expert evidence “Expert evidence shall be restricted to that which is reasonably required to resolve the proceedings”.  This has led to some interesting case law. The most recent discussion is…

BUNDLES IN THE SUPREME COURT: EXERCISING RESTRAINT

BUNDLES IN THE SUPREME COURT: EXERCISING RESTRAINT

May 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

There was a short postscript to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Poshteh v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [2017] UKSC 36> Lord Carnwath gave the single judgment. Even the Supreme Court complains about bundles. This adds to…

WHEN THE WITNESSES ALL SAY THE SAME THING: A RECAP

WHEN THE WITNESSES ALL SAY THE SAME THING: A RECAP

May 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There has been some discussion on Twitter this morning about the issues that  arise when witnesses make statements that are, to all intents and purposes, identical. It provides an opportunity to look at some cases on this issue. They make…

MEDIATION AND LITIGATION:  A REVIEW OF KEY CASES: IGNORE THEM AT YOUR PERIL

MEDIATION AND LITIGATION: A REVIEW OF KEY CASES: IGNORE THEM AT YOUR PERIL

May 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

It is sometimes difficult to keep track of the cases that refer to mediation.  Given that ADR can play a central role in the litigation process this is an appropriate time to review the key cases, particularly in the light…

LORD DYSON AND THE MUNKMAN LECTURE 2017: 50 YEARS OF CHANGE: SELECTED EXTRACTS

LORD DYSON AND THE MUNKMAN LECTURE 2017: 50 YEARS OF CHANGE: SELECTED EXTRACTS

May 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Members Content, Munkman Lecture

John Munkman died 17 years ago.  However his legacy lives on.  Firstly in his books which are still in print and secondly in the annual Munkman lecture organised by Zenith Chambers.  The Munkman name may well help in attracting the…

DUTY TO DRAW ADVERSE AUTHORITIES TO THE  ATTENTION OF THE COURT: HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

DUTY TO DRAW ADVERSE AUTHORITIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT: HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

May 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Members Content

The duty to draw the court’s attention to authorities that do not support your case is an important one.  In Weir -v- Hildson [2017] EWHC 983 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee discusses the extent of this duty. THE CASE The applicant…

THE PERILS OF LEAVING ISSUE TO THE LAST MINUTE: CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS WAS STATUTE BARRED - AMENDMENT DISALLOWED: ADDITION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTION

THE PERILS OF LEAVING ISSUE TO THE LAST MINUTE: CLAIM AGAINST SOLICITORS WAS STATUTE BARRED – AMENDMENT DISALLOWED: ADDITION IS NOT A SUBSTITUTION

May 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Limitation, Members Content

The judgment of the Court of Appeal yesterday  in Godfrey Morgan Solicitors (a firm) -v- Armes [2017] EWCA Civ 323 illustrates the danger of late issue of proceedings.  Issue was left until the last day.  An additional defendant was added…

CANCER, CAUSATION AND THE COURTS: 25th MAY 2017:  CENTRAL LEEDS:  PROCEEDS GO TO CANCER CHARITY

CANCER, CAUSATION AND THE COURTS: 25th MAY 2017: CENTRAL LEEDS: PROCEEDS GO TO CANCER CHARITY

May 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Courses, Members Content

I am speaking with Oncologist Andrew Proctor, and my colleague Helen Rutherford in Leeds on the 25th May 2017 on “Cancer, Causation and the Courts”.  This course: Gives a medical explanation of the nature of the most common types of…

"GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS": THE ROLE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY AND DAMAGES

“GOOD DAYS AND BAD DAYS”: THE ROLE OF VIDEO EVIDENCE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF CREDIBILITY AND DAMAGES

May 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Witness statements

In Karapetianas -v- Kent and Sussex Loft Conversions Ltd [2017] EWHC 859 (QB) Mr Jonathan Swift QC considered the appropriate approach to damages when the claimant’s case as to ongoing symptoms was contradicted by video evidence.  He found that the…

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONSIDERS THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT & CONSIDERS THE IMPORTANT ROLE OF THE SINGLE JOINT EXPERT

May 2, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

We have already looked at the decision in Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 in the context of the award of interest.   The decision also contains important observations about evidence and the way in which the courts approach…

COSTS AGAINST NON-PARTIES: COSTS ORDER NOT MADE AGAINST DIRECTOR

COSTS AGAINST NON-PARTIES: COSTS ORDER NOT MADE AGAINST DIRECTOR

April 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

When is it appropriate to make an order against a director personally? This issue was considered  in Housemaker Services Ltd -v- Cole [2017] EWHC 924 (Ch)  by HHJ Paul Mattews (sitting as a High Court Judge).  The judge declined to…

INTEREST ON DAMAGES AT 8% (AND THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT MATTERS): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION CONSIDERED

INTEREST ON DAMAGES AT 8% (AND THE DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT MATTERS): COURT OF APPEAL DECISION CONSIDERED

April 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Damages, Interest, Members Content

In Perry -v- Raleys Solicitors [2017] EWCA Civ 314 the Court of Appeal decided that the appropriate rate for interest on damages was 8% from the date of breach.  It is not often that questions of interest on damages are…

WHEN THE ASSETS DISAPPEAR FROM A JUDGEMENT DEBTOR: POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLORED

WHEN THE ASSETS DISAPPEAR FROM A JUDGEMENT DEBTOR: POTENTIAL CAUSES OF ACTION EXPLORED

April 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Enforcement, Members Content

The first rule of  Law School is (or should be) “don’t sue anyone who doesn’t have the cash to pay”.  The most meritorious case coupled with the most astute legal team is going to get blood out of a stone….

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: NOT GRANTED WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS TO SEEK DETAILS OF DEFENDANT'S INSURANCE COVER

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: NOT GRANTED WHEN THE PURPOSE WAS TO SEEK DETAILS OF DEFENDANT’S INSURANCE COVER

April 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Disclosure, Members Content

In Peel Port Shareholder Finance Company Ltd-v- Dornoch Ltd [2017] EWHC 876 (TCC) Mr Justice Jefford refused an application for pre-action disclosure of an insurance policy. There is an interesting discussion of the scope of pre-action disclosure and the interrelationship…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED IN GROUP LITIGATION CASE:  THE "THIRD STAGE" IN DENTON CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED IN GROUP LITIGATION CASE: THE “THIRD STAGE” IN DENTON CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

April 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Group Litigation Orders, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the judgment today in Kamathi -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2017] EWHC 939 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart refused an application for relief from sanctions. The Denton principles were considered in detail in the context of a late application…

OPENING LINES OF A JUDGMENT: IT STARTED WITH A TWEET: PAGING DOCTOR FREUD

OPENING LINES OF A JUDGMENT: IT STARTED WITH A TWEET: PAGING DOCTOR FREUD

April 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The opening line of a judgment is often a good guide as to what it to follow. For a few days there has been some, occasionally  heated, discussion, as to the best opening lines of a judicial pronouncement. THE TWITTER…

BOUNDARIES, BORDERS AND COSTS: IF YOU LEAVE THE ISSUE OF COSTS TO THE JUDGE YOU MAY NOT GET THE ANSWER YOU WANT

BOUNDARIES, BORDERS AND COSTS: IF YOU LEAVE THE ISSUE OF COSTS TO THE JUDGE YOU MAY NOT GET THE ANSWER YOU WANT

April 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Powles -v- Reeves [2016] EWCA Civ 1375 shows the dangers of not being able to agree the principle of who should pay the costs of litigation. It shows the dangers of just…

PROVING THINGS 61: MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA:  FACEBOOK ENTRIES AND  WITNESS CREDIBILITY

PROVING THINGS 61: MORE ON SOCIAL MEDIA: FACEBOOK ENTRIES AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY

April 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Facebook and social media play an increasingly important part in litigation.  We have looked at several cases where social media has played a critical part in the assessment of witness credibility.  Facebook played a part of the judgment today  of…

PRESSING THE WRONG BUTTON: THE PERILS OF  EMAIL "REPLY ALL"  IN LITIGATION (OR ARBITRATION)

PRESSING THE WRONG BUTTON: THE PERILS OF EMAIL “REPLY ALL” IN LITIGATION (OR ARBITRATION)

April 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content

Many, if not all, of us will have made some errors with emails on some occasion.  There is a danger, however, when this happens in litigation. This can be seen in the judgment of Mr Justice Popplewell  in T -v-…

NOTES FROM A BELEAGUERED BENCH: THE IRON FIST AND NO VELVET GLOVER

NOTES FROM A BELEAGUERED BENCH: THE IRON FIST AND NO VELVET GLOVER

April 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Members Content, Useful links

There is a section on this blog which has links to posts and articles on procedure.  Usually I am content to post the link and lead to it readers to look at it themselves.  The article by Peter Glover in…

APPLICATIONS TO AMEND APPEAL NOTICE AND PARTICULARS AT A LATE STAGE NOT ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

APPLICATIONS TO AMEND APPEAL NOTICE AND PARTICULARS AT A LATE STAGE NOT ALLOWED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

April 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content

I am grateful to Jill Greenfield from Field Fisher  for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal transcript in Howe -v- Motor Insurers Bureau (CA 8th February 2017). This is a judgment refusing permission to amend and for…

MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A "TIME LIMITED" OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER

MACHISMO OR MADNESS? THE DANGERS OF MAKING A “TIME LIMITED” OFFER OR WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER

April 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

There may be tactical advantages to making a “time limited” offer, or withdrawing a Part 36 offer after 21 days.  However this can backfire badly.  We have already looked at the decision in Thakkar -v- Singh [2017] EWCA 117 in…

MERRIX NOT BEING APPEALED (BUT HARRISON IS - WATCH THIS SPACE)

MERRIX NOT BEING APPEALED (BUT HARRISON IS – WATCH THIS SPACE)

April 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The decision in Merrix -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 346 (QB) is not being appealed by the defendant. The rationale is, apparently, that the defendant did not want to risk losing the listing of the appeal in Harrison…

INTEREST ON AWARD NOT AUTOMATIC: A DECISION WHERE NO INTEREST WAS AWARDED

INTEREST ON AWARD NOT AUTOMATIC: A DECISION WHERE NO INTEREST WAS AWARDED

April 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Damages, Interest, Members Content

The question of when, and whether, interest should be awarded is one of these issues in litigation that receives little coverage.  In Pinfold -v- Ansell [2017] EWHC 889 (Ch) HHJ David Cooke decided not to award interest at all. It…

MEDIATION AND LITIGATION: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF IGNORING OFFERS TO MEDIATE

MEDIATION AND LITIGATION: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF IGNORING OFFERS TO MEDIATE

April 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

This blog reports regularly on cases where the courts have highlighted the advantages of mediation and the dangers of rejecting an offer to mediate. The latest note of cautious comes from the judgment of Lord Justice Jackson in Thakkar -v-…

BILL OF £101,677.21  AND THE CLAIMANT ENDS UP WITH £2,515.60: MISCONDUCT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

BILL OF £101,677.21 AND THE CLAIMANT ENDS UP WITH £2,515.60: MISCONDUCT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

April 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Justin Edwards of BLM solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Whalan in Jago -v-Whitbread a decision of Master Whalan. A copy of that case is attached here ( 2016.10.05 – Approved Judgment)….

FILING FORM H: WHEN DOES A CASE HAVE A VALUE OF "LESS THAN £50,000"?  A POINT TO WATCH

FILING FORM H: WHEN DOES A CASE HAVE A VALUE OF “LESS THAN £50,000”? A POINT TO WATCH

April 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are now several formats for Form H. The “short” one page version is now used in cases where the value is between £25,000 and  “less than £50,000”. Some judges are interpreting this strictly to read between £25,000 and £49,999″….

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: STILL A MAJOR PROBLEM: PROCEDURAL ERRORS ARE "INEVITABLE"

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: STILL A MAJOR PROBLEM: PROCEDURAL ERRORS ARE “INEVITABLE”

April 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Members Content

We have had graphic examples recently of cases where committal proceedings in civil, or family, proceedings have gone badly wrong.    In LL -v- Lord Chancellor [2017] EWCA Civ 237,   the Court of Appeal held that the procedure adopted…

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE...)

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…)

April 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

There has already been some interesting debate on Twitter about one aspect of the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that has not made the headlines.   Dominic Regan observed that the case is another example…

DELAY, DENTON, APPEALS AND CROSS-APPEALS: EXTENSION OF TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED

DELAY, DENTON, APPEALS AND CROSS-APPEALS: EXTENSION OF TIME WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED

April 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Pinisetty -v-Manikonda [2017] EWHC 838 (QB) Mr Justice Langstaff considered an issue relating to an appeal (and cross-appeal)  being out of time. Although the judgment on this issue is largely academic (the appeal failed in any event), it contains…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS, DESTROYED DOCUMENTS AND THE DEFENDANT'S WITNESS WITH NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE: CHANGING WITNESS STATEMENTS, DESTROYED DOCUMENTS AND THE DEFENDANT’S WITNESS WITH NO CREDIBILITY AT ALL

April 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Goss in RE -v- Calderdale & Huddersfield Foundation Trust [2017] EWHC 824 (QB) shows some concern about the nature of the evidence adduced by the defendant.  Documents had been (inadvertently) destroyed and definitely altered. Witnesses…

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKEN OUT: A FATAL ERROR FROM THE OUTSET

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKEN OUT: A FATAL ERROR FROM THE OUTSET

April 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Striking out

In Qunintana -v- Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 28/03/2017 Master Cook upheld the established principle that an action cannot be brought by administrators of an estate before the letters of administration are taken out.  Proceedings cannot later be amended…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHO APPEARED BY COUNSEL: A "SURPRISING STATE OF AFFAIRS" PUT RIGHT

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHO APPEARED BY COUNSEL: A “SURPRISING STATE OF AFFAIRS” PUT RIGHT

April 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There may well be a term for the process by which a number of decisions, which appeared sensible at the time they were made, lead to a ridiculous result. This principle may well apply to what happened in Falmouth House…

PROVING THINGS 60: PUTTING SEAWEED OUT OF THE WINDOW:  THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND THE JUDGE WHO WAS EVEN-HANDEDLY OFFENSIVE:

PROVING THINGS 60: PUTTING SEAWEED OUT OF THE WINDOW: THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND THE JUDGE WHO WAS EVEN-HANDEDLY OFFENSIVE:

April 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content

The Court of Appeal judgment in McBride -v- UK Insurance Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 144 has been covered widely on the issue of the appropriate rate for car hire charges after an accident. However less widely discussed is the fact that,…

KNOW (AND FOLLOW) THE RULES - OR ELSE: DPP COPS IT.

KNOW (AND FOLLOW) THE RULES – OR ELSE: DPP COPS IT.

April 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There is some irony in the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in R (RA) -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 714 (Admin).  The claimant, a litigant in person, complied with the rules. The defendant, a specialised government department…

BANKS, WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY: AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT

BANKS, WITNESSES AND CREDIBILITY: AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT

April 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There are many reasons why lawyers should read the decision in Thomas -v- Triodos Bank NV [2017] EWHC 314 (QB).  There is an interesting consideration of the duty of care a bank owes a customer and the Hedley Byrne principles….

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED

JUDICIAL INTERVENTION, INTERRUPTIONS AND HOT TUBBING: JUDICIAL LATITUDE IS NOT UNLIMITED

April 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

In Shaw -v- Grouby [2017] EWCA Civ 233 the Court of Appeal made some observations about the dangers of a judge getting too inquisitorial in the course of a trial, particularly in the course of cross-examination. “The judge intervened in…

FILE A SKELETON ARGUMENT - IT IS MANDATORY

FILE A SKELETON ARGUMENT – IT IS MANDATORY

April 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

Many of the posts about skeleton arguments on this blog have been about content (usually length),  The surprising aspect of R -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2017] EWHC 639 (Admin) is that both sides decided not to file…

THE TRIAL JUDGE AND FINDINGS OF FACT:  COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT OVERTURN FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE

THE TRIAL JUDGE AND FINDINGS OF FACT: COURT OF APPEAL DID NOT OVERTURN FINDINGS OF TRIAL JUDGE

April 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

A disappointed insurer failed in its attempt to overturn findings of a trial judge in Hamid -v- Khalid [2017] EWCA Civ 201. “The task of a trial judge is difficult enough without having to deal expressly with every single piece…

WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE "INDEPENDENT" WITNESS IS NOT ACCEPTED: WHEN WE WILL EVER LEARN?

WHEN THE EVIDENCE OF THE “INDEPENDENT” WITNESS IS NOT ACCEPTED: WHEN WE WILL EVER LEARN?

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In a case where there are disputed facts a party that has an independent witness usually holds a strong hand.  However in Elson -v- Stilgoe [2017] EWCA Civ 193 today the Court of Appeal upheld a decision where the trial…

PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT "USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT"

PLEADINGS, FACTS AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: EXPERT SHOULD NOT “USURP THE FUNCTION OF THE COURT”

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case

There is an interesting discussion of the purpose of pleadings and expert evidence in the judgment of  HH Parkes QC in PP -v- The Home Office [2017] EWHC 663 (QB). The fact that an expert report is referred to in…

LIMITING CLAIM TO £10,000 DID NOT PREVENT COURT AWARDING £140,000: CPR 16.3(7) IN USE

LIMITING CLAIM TO £10,000 DID NOT PREVENT COURT AWARDING £140,000: CPR 16.3(7) IN USE

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Court fees, Damages, Members Content

In the judgment today in Harrath -v- Stand for Peace Ltd [2017] EWHC 653 (QB) Sir David Eady awarded £140,000 in a case where the claim form limited the claim to £10,000.  This is an interesting development in an environment where…

WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAKE WITNESS STATEMENTS: FAREPAK REVISITED

WHEN PUBLIC OFFICIALS MAKE WITNESS STATEMENTS: FAREPAK REVISITED

March 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There was a  post earlier this week where a public official faced contempt of court proceedings that was “false and tended to mislead”, and was acquitted because the statement was “careless” rather than criminal.  This provides a good opportunity to…

INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS:  READ (AND CITE) THE CORRECT CHAPTER OF COOK ON COSTS

INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: READ (AND CITE) THE CORRECT CHAPTER OF COOK ON COSTS

March 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content

 I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of an order from HH Judge Robinson,  It relates to an application on account of costs.  The appeal was (for obvious reasons) compromised. However the robust terms of the…

A JUDGE CANNOT GIVE PERMISSION TO APPEAL AFTER THE HEARING: MONROE -v- HOPKINS - SECOND ROUND

A JUDGE CANNOT GIVE PERMISSION TO APPEAL AFTER THE HEARING: MONROE -v- HOPKINS – SECOND ROUND

March 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content

The case of Monroe -v- Hopkins [2017] EWHC 645 (QB) is the second judgment on the case. The judgment today related solely to the defendant’s application for permission to appeal. The judge ruled that he did not have jurisdiction to…

WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SIGNS A "CARELESS" WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS "FALSE AND TENDED TO MISLEAD": NOT IMPRESSIVE TO SAY THE LEAST

WHEN A PUBLIC OFFICIAL SIGNS A “CARELESS” WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS “FALSE AND TENDED TO MISLEAD”: NOT IMPRESSIVE TO SAY THE LEAST

March 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

There are many cases that show a surprisingly insouciant approach to accuracy by those who draft, and those who sign, witness statements.  This  insouciance  is even more surprising when the person who has signed the statement is a public official,…

INTEREST ON DAMAGES AFTER FAILING TO BEAT A CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: THE AIM IS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD PRACTICE AND NOT SIMPLY TO COMPENSATE

INTEREST ON DAMAGES AFTER FAILING TO BEAT A CLAIMANT’S PART 36 OFFER: THE AIM IS TO ENCOURAGE GOOD PRACTICE AND NOT SIMPLY TO COMPENSATE

March 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

In Ovm Petrom SA -v- Glencore International SA [2017] EWCA Civ 195 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision not to award 10% interest on damages in a case where a defendant failed to beat a claimant’s Part 36 offer….

"SOLICITOR FORCING ME TO SIGN AN INCORRECT WITNESS STATEMENT":  A VERY FRIGHTENING SEARCH TERM

“SOLICITOR FORCING ME TO SIGN AN INCORRECT WITNESS STATEMENT”: A VERY FRIGHTENING SEARCH TERM

March 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

It is possible to see some of the search terms that lead people to this blog (I should stress that there are no details of who made the search). One of the search terms yesterday was “solicitor forcing me to…

PROVING THINGS 59: TO GET SPECIAL  DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO PLEAD THEM AND PROVE THEM (EVEN IN DEFAMATION CASES)

PROVING THINGS 59: TO GET SPECIAL DAMAGES YOU HAVE TO PLEAD THEM AND PROVE THEM (EVEN IN DEFAMATION CASES)

March 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

In Lisle-Mainwaring -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd [2017] EWHC 543 (QB) Judge Parkes QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) declined to award the claimant special damages for financial outlay on the grounds that they were never properly…

← Previous 1 … 116 117 118 … 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

  • 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
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: FOR WANT OF A PAGE IN A BUNDLE THE DAMAGES WERE LOWER… (SEPTEMBER 2015)
  • THE PAYING PARTY’S MANUAL: HOW TO REDUCE YOUR OWN CLIENT’S LIABILITY TO PAY THEIR OPPONENT’S COSTS: THE WEBINAR, THE BOOK AND THE TOOLKIT

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.