Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Abuse of process » Page 2

SOLICITOR FOUND TO HAVE DELIBERATELY MISLED THE COURT: BOREH -v- DJIBOUTI

March 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

In Boreh -v- Republic of Djibouti [2015] EWHC 769 (Comm) Mr Justice Flaux made a clear and unequivocal finding that a solicitor had deliberately misled the court. This led to the setting aside of the injunction that the clients had…

"WALKING THE LINE": THE SRA ON BALANCING THE DUTIES OF LITIGATORS IN LITIGATION: A POTTED SUMMARY

March 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

For reasons that may become evident in later posts this is an apposite day to consider the duties owed by litigators. The SRA have produced “Walking the line” a consideration of the ethical duties owed by litigators. A BRIEF SUMMARY…

SHOULD A SECOND ACTION BE STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS? AN ISSUE COMING TO THE COURT OF APPEAL SOON

February 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

There is an important note in the news section of Hardwicke Chambers website.  The Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal in a case where the judge refused to strike out a second action issued after a first action…

CASE STRUCK OUT AFTER JUDGMENT BECAUSE REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

December 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Striking out

In Zaman -v- Paradise UK Ltd (QBD) 11/12/2014* Judge Seymour QC upheld a decision of the Master to strike out a personal injury action on the grounds of abuse of process where liability had been admitted.  This is an important…

SECOND ACTION AGAINST A DIFFERENT DEFENDANT STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS: ALCOCK -v- PARK BUSINESS CENTRES LIMITED

December 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

Should a second action, issued because the first was struck out for some reason, be struck out?  I am grateful to Charles Bagot of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me a copy of the transcript of a decision by District Judge…

SOLICITOR'S BILL OF COSTS STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIM WAS EXAGGERATED AND (IN PART) FALSE

November 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

In Alpha Rocks Solicitors -v- Alade [2014] EWHC 3606 (Ch) Kevin Prosser Q.C., sitting as a judge of the High Court, struck out part of the solicitor’s bill as an abuse of process. The case makes instructive reading.  It involved…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: WEARN -v- HNH CONSIDERED

October 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out

In Wearn -v- HNH International Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch) Mr Justice Barling struck out a claim for delay, holding that the claimant’s delay amounted to an abuse of process. There are also a few interesting observations about the…

MATTERS LEADING UP TO THE MAKING OF A WITNESS STATEMENT MAY NOT NECESSARILY HAVE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS IMMUNITY: COULD YOU BE CROSS-EXAMINED ON THE WAY YOU TOOK A WITNESS STATEMENT?

September 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Statements made in the course of proceedings are usually subject to judicial proceedings immunity.  The scope and extent of this immunity was considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in Singh -v- Governing Body of Moorlands Primary School [2013]…

SECOND ACTION AFTER SETTLEMENT NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED: DOWDALL CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Second set of proceedings

The case of Dowdall -v- William Kenyon & Sons Ltd [2014] EWHC 2822 (QB) decided yesterday contains some important observations in relation to allegations of abuse of process; estoppel and section 33. THE FACTS Mr Dowdall has pleural mesotheliomia. In 2003…

UNILATERAL DECISIONS TO VARY ORDERS WILL LEAD TO TROUBLE AND AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT: PARATUS AMC EXAMINED

June 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Paratus AMC Ltd -v- Lewis [2014] EWHC 1577 (Ch) has been placed on Bailli following an order by the judge to highlight an issue of contempt of court. As such it clearly requires wider publication. It also…

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND THE SECRET STATE: HOW FAR CAN IT GO?

February 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

Yesterday I wrote of problems when the court was refusing to issue proceedings alleging (wrongly) that they were statute barred.  It is becoming frightening that important issues of law are being made (or purportedly made) by administrators.  This led to…

FREEZING ORDERS AND THE DUTIES OWED ON EX PARTE APPLICATIONS: NUCLEAR WEAPONS THAT CAN BLOW UP IN YOUR FACE

February 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

 COOKE -v- VENULUM PROPERTY INVESTMENTS LTD [2013] EWHC 4288 Freezing orders are part of the “nuclear weapons” of civil litigation. As such they should be approached with extreme care.  This case illustrates the dangers involved when a party seeks a…

STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIM BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENT: MORE DETAIL PROVIDED

January 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dave Toulson of Hill Dickinson for a more detailed explanation of the news that prompted the article on drafting witness statements and proving damages. The original tweet was that a claim for hire had been struck…

THE DANGERS OF NOT USING PRE-ACTION PROTOCOLS & THE PRACTICE DIRECTION TO THE FULL: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PREMATURE ISSUE

January 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

The next in the series was going to be a review of the rules and principles relating to pre-action conduct.   However Kerry Underwood has written a post that deals with this issue comprehensively and I have nothing to add.  Here we look…

MITCHELL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CASE STRUCK OUT

January 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

Mitchell, in terms of the importance of case management, was mentioned in the High Court case of Vaughan –v-London Borough of Lewisham.  The facts were unusual, but the reference to case management powers and the importance of the economy and…

SECOND ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Searches for “abuse of process and section action” formed more than half of the search terms that brought people to this blog earlier in the week.  It is clear that this is going to be a major subject of litigation…

← Previous 1 2

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 62: THE REVISED COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT: SOME SMALL BUT SIGNIFICANT REVISIONS
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 75: APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO AMEND THE DAY BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEAL HEARING, WITH NO NOTICE GIVEN: HAVE A GUESS HOW THIS WENT…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 75: A CLAIMANT DOES NOT ALWAYS NEED TO PLEAD A CLAIM FOR INTEREST: AN INTERESTING POINT… BUT BE VERY WARY…
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 74: A PARTY CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO AMEND THE LIST OF ISSUES TO INCLUDE AN ISSUE THAT IT HAS NEVER PLEADED
  • WEBINARS AVAILABLE ON DEMAND: WITNESS STATEMENTS; MAZUR; INFORMING THE CLIENT ABOUT THE COSTS OF LITIGATION AND PART 36: A HEADY BREW TO LIGHTEN UP ANY LITIGATOR’S DAY…

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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