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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 84 : DEFENCE STRUCK OUT “THE SMALL PARTS OF THE PLEADINGS THAT DO ADDRESS THE CLAIMANT’S CARE ARE LIKE TINY ISLANDS LOST IN A VAST OCEAN OF IRRELEVANCE”
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN A RULE OR AN ORDER PRESCRIBES A PAGE LIMIT TO A WITNESS STATEMENT – THEN YOU’D BETTER STICK TO IT: THE COURT IS UNLIKELY TO CONDONE “FORENSIC CHEATING”
  • RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT “DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF “BREACH NOW REPENT LATER”
  • CHILDREN AND FATAL ACCIDENT LITIGATION 2026: WEBINAR 30th JUNE 2026
  • COST BITES 406: CAN A PARTY RECOVER UNNECESSARY COSTS AS DAMAGES? THE CONSEQUENCES OF AN UNNECESSARY SECOND ACTION CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
ASKING THE JUDGE QUESTIONS AFTER JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED: THEY HAVE TO BE NECESSARY TO ENABLE THE PARTIES TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONING OF THE DECISION (AND THESE GO TOO FAR...)
THE COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS A JUDICIAL REVIEW DECISION IN FAVOUR OF A SOLICITOR: THE OMBUDSMAN GOT NOTHING WRONG (QUITE A LOT HERE ABOUT VULNERABLE CLIENTS AS WELL...)
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (1): THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A "MINI TRIAL"
AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (3): THE DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

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