Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Appeal bundles
APPEALS: POINTS OF LAW AND BUNDLES: LITIGANTS SHOWN THE YELLOW CARD: YOU CAN READ THE RULES HERE

APPEALS: POINTS OF LAW AND BUNDLES: LITIGANTS SHOWN THE YELLOW CARD: YOU CAN READ THE RULES HERE

June 16, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Written advocacy

In  Banks v Blount [2022] EWHC 1491 (QB) Mr Justice Ritchie was critical of an appellant for failing to comply with two basic elements of the practice directions relating to appeals.  The need for clarity and precision when referring to…

WHAT A DAY FOR BUNDLES - SUPREME COURT SHENANIGANS DOESN'T LEAD TO PANNICK: A RECAP OF AVAILABLE GUIDANCE

WHAT A DAY FOR BUNDLES – SUPREME COURT SHENANIGANS DOESN’T LEAD TO PANNICK: A RECAP OF AVAILABLE GUIDANCE

September 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Civil evidence

Yesterday the Supreme Court was hearing two appeals in relation to the the prorogation of Parliament.  The line up of legal talent is immense.  However every single litigation lawyer watching could identify with the problems that the court was having…

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES - A MUST AT TRIAL - A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES...)

BUNDLES AGAIN: DOUBLE SIDED BUNDLES – A MUST AT TRIAL – A NO, NO IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (DOES NOBODY THINK OF THE TREES…)

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles

  There was much excitement about the rules changes so that bundles for applications and trials should be double-sided.  However nothing is consistent in legal procedure. I am grateful to barrister Matt Jackson for sending me a (highly redacted) copy…

A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

A SECOND POST ABOUT BUNDLES OF AUTHORITIES: SORTING OF AUTHORITIES BY ALPHABETICAL ORDER NOT HELPFUL: COMMENTS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

July 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles

The Court of Appeal adjourned the hearing today in Swift -v- Carpenter.  Looking at the footage at 1.04 you can see a comment by the court in relation to the bundle of authorities.   THE BUNDLE WAS IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER…

BUNDLES IN THE SUPREME COURT: EXERCISING RESTRAINT

BUNDLES IN THE SUPREME COURT: EXERCISING RESTRAINT

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

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 BUNDLES & SANCTIONS COLLIDE: DAVIS -v- RAJA: FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL BUNDLE LEADS TO APPEAL BEING STRUCK OUT

March 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

In Davis Solicitors LLP -v- Raja [2015] EWHC 519 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone refused the claimant relief from sanctions following a failure to comply with directions on appeal in relation to the filing of a bundle. There are important practical…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 26,758 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED
  • A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A “DUTY OF GOOD FAITH” TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
  • A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON
  • PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: “PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY”
  • AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…

Top Posts & Pages

  • FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROTOCOL LEADS TO COSTS OF A MEDICAL REPORT NOT BEING RECOVERED
  • A CLIENT DOES NOT OWE A "DUTY OF GOOD FAITH" TO A SOLICITOR ACTING UNDER A CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT
  • THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED
  • PART 36 & COSTS: DEFENDANT COULD NOT SHOW INJUSTICE WHEN IT ACCEPTED A PART 36 OFFER OUT OF TIME: "PART 36 IS INTENDED TO BE A TWO-WAY STRAIGHT AND NARROW HIGHWAY"
  • HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin