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

AMENDING PLEADINGS LATE 1: WANI LLP -v- RBS: A MATTER OF INTEREST?

May 3, 2015 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

There have been a few cases recently relating to fairly last minute attempts to amend pleadings. The principles governing applications were considered by Mr Justice Henderson in Wani LLP -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland [2015] EWHC 1181 (Ch). It…

COCKELL –v- HOLTON AND MISLEADING HEADLINES: IT WASN'T THE WRONG EMAIL ADDRESS THAT KILLED THE COUNTERCLAIM

May 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents, Statements of Case

There are many reports in the legal press that deal with the relief from sanctions issue in Cockell -v- Holton (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC). Many of these concentrate upon the initial failure to lodge the pleading at court because…

AMENDED PLEADING FILED LATE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: THE NEED TO PLEAD THE CASE PROPERLY

April 29, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

In Cockell -v- Holton (No 2) [2015] EWHC 1117 (TCC) the defendant made a mistake in typing an e mail address so that an amended Defence and Counterclaim was served late. The application for relief from sanctions was refused.  The…

LITIGATE IN HASTE AND YOU WON'T NECESSARILY BE ALLOWED TO AMEND AT LEISURE: SU-LING -v- GOLMAN SACHS INTERNATIONAL

March 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Statements of Case

In the judgment today in  Quah Su-Ling -v- Goldman Sachs International [2015] EWHC Mrs Justice Carr DBE refused a claimant permission to amend her particulars of claim at a late stage. The judgment contains a succinct review of the law…

BACK TO BASICS WITH PLEADINGS: PROPORTIONATE LITIGATION AND BREVITY ESSENTIAL ON APPEALS

December 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

“Pleadings are intended to help the Court and the parties. In recent years practitioners have, on occasion, lost sight of that aim. Documents are drafted of interminable length and diffuseness and conspicuous lack of precision, which are often destined never…

“FAILING TO SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES” AND LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS : GROARKE –V- FONTAINE CONSIDERED

May 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Groarke –v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1679 (QB) centred on a Road Traffic Accident that happened in November 2009.  The central issue on appeal was whether a late application to amend the defence to plead contributory negligence should have been allowed….

← 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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • 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”
  • 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
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE NEED TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM: LITIGATORS HAVE BEEN COMING TO GRIEF ON THIS ISSUE FOR WELL OVER A DECADE (AT LEAST…)
  • COST BITES 454 : INTEREST ON COSTS: A SERIES OF CHECKLISTS AND USEFUL LINKS FOR THE PAYING PARTY
  • COST BITES 453: YOU ARE NOT GETTING A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT JUST BECAUSE YOU ALL WANT ONE: THE BROADBRUSH IS TOO BLUNT A TOOL FOR THIS PROCESS

Top Posts

WHEN CHAT GPT DRAFTED A "SKELETON" ARGUMENT - 300 PAGES AND 132,000 WORDS LONG: THE LITIGANT RETAINS RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES
SERVICE POINTS 54: THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM IN TIME: THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON A DEFENDANT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 7.7: THE ACTION BITES THE DUST
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS "HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THE ROLE OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS": A USEFUL CHECKLIST AND LINKS TO KEEP YOU ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW
ADVISING THE CLIENT OF THE RISKS OF LITIGATION: TEN USEFUL CHECKLISTS COUPLED WITH THE RELEVANT LINKS
COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATIONS TO AMEND AND TO RESILE FROM ADMISSIONS: A SUBMISSION THAT "WELL WE WERE LYING WHEN WE SIGNED THOSE STATEMENTS OF TRUTH" IS NOT A GOOD STARTING PLACE

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