Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Appeal Court » Page 3

ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK AND THE FAST TRACK: WHAT IS MEANT BY "ANY AMOUNT NOT IN DISPUTE"?

June 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content

In the case of Akhtar -v- Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 the Court of Appeal gave guidance on CPR 26 and the matters to be considered when a determination is made as to allocation between the Fast Track and the…

WITNESS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RELIED ON AT TRIAL IF SERVED LATE AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GIVEN

June 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

Lawtel today reported the case of Davies -v- Liberty Place [2014] EWHC 2034 (Admin). In that case Leggatt J stated that a party who served a witness statement late was not automatically precluded from relying on that statement at trial….

COURT OF APPEAL SANCTIONS HEARING: SUBMISSIONS IN UTILISE -V- DAVIES

June 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The final tranche of the notes taking at the hearing of the sanctions cases yesterday. The case of Utilise -v- Davies.  Discussion of the first instance decision  can be found in this blog as can a link to the transcript….

SANCTIONS CASE TODAY: SUBMISSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM THE LAW SOCIETY AND BAR COUNCIL

June 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Bar Council and the Law Society were invited to make submissions at the sanctions hearings in the Court of Appeal today. The discussions between the Bar and the Bench make fascinating reading. (Mr Holland QC for both the Bar…

SANCTIONS HEARING TODAY: NOTES OF THE HEARING IN DECADENT VAPOURS

June 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

DECADENT VAPOURS LIMITED V BEVAN Heard by the Court of Appeal on 16th June 2014  (Lord Justice Dyson MR) (Lord Justice Jackson) (Lord Justice Vos)  APPELLANT/CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION  In the present case the appellant appeals a decision to refuse relief from…

COURT OF APPEAL HEARING TODAY: DETAILED NOTE OF SUBMISSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AT THE COURT

June 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Court of Appeal hearing on sanctions after Mitchell goes on.   Here I outline, in detail, the submissions and discussions in Denton.  Other cases will follow. DENTON AND OTHERS V T H WHITE LIMITED  Heard by the Court of…

“MITCHELL BITES TO PENALISE LITIGANTS WHO FAIL TO COMPLY”: EXTENSIONS OF TIME, APPEALS AND BAHO.

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Baho & Ors –v- Meerza [2014] EWCA Civ 669 is a further example of a litigant coming to grief because they failed to file an application in time and make the application for an extension of time…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: IF YOU DON'T DO THEM PROPERLY YOU WON'T GET PAID!

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Written advocacy

The judicial review/planning law case of Secretary of State for Local Government -v-  Hopkins Development Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 470 contains some interesting observations of general interest to civil litigators. THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS Jackson L.J. prefaced his judgment with observations…

SANCTIONS: CASE WATCH

SANCTIONS: CASE WATCH

December 12, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

This section  looks at decisions in relation to relief from sanctions and the general principles of CPR 3.9. Often there are links to the decisions themselves, together with links to posts on this blog. CASES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER May 2026…

TIBBLES BITES AGAIN: THE PROBLEMS OF ATTEMPTING TO VARY A COURT ORDER

December 3, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Hot on the heels of the previous post in relation to variation of court orders that a party dislikes comes another report highlighting the difficulties facing a party seeking to vary an order, Apex Global Management –v- Global Torch Ltd…

← Previous 1 2 3

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

  • LAWYERS AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AVOIDING THE PITFALLS (5): “THE HEARING WAS A SALUTARY LESSON IN HOW AI MAY PROMPT LAY PERSONS TO SAY THE RIGHT THINGS IN PLEADINGS, BUT CANNOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THOSE STATEMENTS”
  • THE DUTY OF FULL AND FRANK DISCLOSURE: USEFUL GUIDANCE AND AN ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST WHEN MAKING AN APPLICATION TO SERVE OUT…
  • A COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE WITHOUT NOTICE: ANOTHER CASE THAT EMPHASISES THE IMPORTANCE OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT THESE APPLICATIONS: A LAWYER CANNOT SIMPLY PROMOTE A “CONSPIRACY THEORY” BUT MOST ACT OBJECTIVELY AND CAREFULLY
  • THE REPLY: THE THEME OF THE DAY: SIX USEFUL CHECKLISTS: MAKING SURE YOUR PLEADING DOESN’T FAIL THE BASIC TESTS
  • DRAFTING A DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: SOME IMPORTANT POINTS: YOU HAVE TO COMPLY WITH CPR 16 AND DO IT FULLY AND PROPERLY

Top Posts

THE IMPORTANT DISTINCTION BETWEEN AN APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT AND ONE FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: DECISION TO STRIKE OUT ALLOWED ON APPEAL BECAUSE THE JUDGE HAD WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE MERITS
COST BITES 449 : YOUR CASE AGAINST ME WAS DISMISSED BECAUSE YOU HAD NO PROPER CAUSE OF ACTION: SHOULD I GET 100% OF MY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS? (LIFE IS MORE NUANCED THAN THIS...)
EXPERT WATCH 71: "I DO NOT ATTACH WEIGHT TO THIS REPORT AS EXPERT EVIDENCE": THE EXPERT WAS "ADVOCATING" AND "HE TRESPASSES INTO THE ROLE RESERVED TO THE TRIBUNAL"
CLAIM AGAINST A SOLICITOR WAS STRUCK OUT: THERE HAD BEEN NUMEROUS PROCEDURAL DEFAULT AND THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN FORGIVEN...
THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING AN APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME BEFORE THE DATE OF COMPLIANCE: THE COURT DOES NOT CONSIDER DENTON PRINCIPLES EVEN IF THE APPLICANT FAILS TO MEET THEIR OWN PROPOSED TIMETABLE

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.