Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Appeals » Page 13
LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO THE OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION TO PUT FORWARD YOUR BEST EVIDENCE

LITIGATION: NO DUTY TO THE OTHER SIDE IN LITIGATION TO PUT FORWARD YOUR BEST EVIDENCE

December 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Parties to actions, Professional negligence,

The Court of Appeal judgment this morning in  Revenue And Customs v Charles (t/a Boston Computer Group Europe) [2019] EWCA Civ 2176 contains some important observations in relation to the duties that litigating parties owe to each other.   “If…

HIGH COURT ALLOWS RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPEAL FAILING A FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE ON TIME

HIGH COURT ALLOWS RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPEAL FAILING A FAILURE TO PAY THE TRIAL FEE ON TIME

December 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Badejo v Cranston [2019] EWHC 3343 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt overturned the decision of a Circuit Judge and granted relief from sanctions to a claimant who had failed to pay the trial fee in time.   One issue related to…

WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES DUE TO ABSENT EVIDENCE? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

WHEN SHOULD A JUDGE DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES DUE TO ABSENT EVIDENCE? COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

November 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of the Court of Appeal today in Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (Gb) Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 2110 makes some important points in relation to civil evidence.  It reviews the law relating to the drawing of adverse inferences due…

NO SECOND BITE OF A CHERRY AFTER A TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS JUDGE'S DECISION

NO SECOND BITE OF A CHERRY AFTER A TRIAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONFIRMS JUDGE’S DECISION

November 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content

In  L’Oreal (UK) Ltd & Anor v Liqwd Inc & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1943  the Court of Appeal confirmed the trial judge’s decision not to admit new evidence that a defendant attempted to introduce after judgment was handed down….

THE SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS OF A "TRUSTED BRAND"/"CAPRICIOUS MID-VICTORIAN FACTORY-OWNER": THE DANGERS OF PUTTING YOUR CASE TOO HIGH

THE SELF INFLICTED WOUNDS OF A “TRUSTED BRAND”/”CAPRICIOUS MID-VICTORIAN FACTORY-OWNER”: THE DANGERS OF PUTTING YOUR CASE TOO HIGH

November 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The judgment of Lord Justice Coulson rejecting the Post Office’s application for permission to appeal is available on “Post Office Trial”, a case that has already been looked at several times on this blog.   Here we have a critical appraisal…

FIXED COSTS NOT OVERTURNED BY THE TERMS OF AN AMBIGUOUS PART 36 OFFER: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

FIXED COSTS NOT OVERTURNED BY THE TERMS OF AN AMBIGUOUS PART 36 OFFER: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

November 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In  the judgment today in Ho v Adelekun [2019] EWCA Civ 1988 the Court of Appeal held that fixed costs still applied to a case  where an offer of settlement did not expressly refer to costs being fixed. “…parties who…

AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL ON A COSTS BUDGETING DECISION: SHOULD A QC BE ALLOWED - OR IS THAT A LEADING QUESTION?

AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPEAL ON A COSTS BUDGETING DECISION: SHOULD A QC BE ALLOWED – OR IS THAT A LEADING QUESTION?

November 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The case of  Easteye Ltd v Malhotra Property Investments Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 2820 (Ch) is unusual in that it is an appeal against a costs budgeting decision.  Nugee J refused the claimant’s appeal against the District Judge’s decision…

WHEN "ROBUST" CASE MANAGEMENT TURNS INTO APPARENT BIAS: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS DIRECTIONS: THE TALE OF THE ORGAN GRINDER

WHEN “ROBUST” CASE MANAGEMENT TURNS INTO APPARENT BIAS: HIGH COURT OVERTURNS DIRECTIONS: THE TALE OF THE ORGAN GRINDER

November 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

In Dorman & Ors v Clinton Devon Farms Partnership [2019] EWHC 2988 (QB) Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini allowed an appeal against directions made by a Circuit Judge. He also upheld an appeal against that judges refusal to recuse himself on…

PROVING THINGS 168: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:STATEMENTS OF OPINION OR BELIEF CARRY NO WEIGHT

PROVING THINGS 168: PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION:STATEMENTS OF OPINION OR BELIEF CARRY NO WEIGHT

November 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

The Court of Appeal judgment today  in  Irani v Duchon [2019] EWCA Civ 1846 adds to the Proving Things series in relation to a failure to establish key matters at trial (it also gives me an opportunity to promote the…

INSURER NOT LIABLE TO PAY CLAIMANTS' COSTS: TRAVELERS INSURANCE DECISION OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT

INSURER NOT LIABLE TO PAY CLAIMANTS’ COSTS: TRAVELERS INSURANCE DECISION OVERTURNED BY THE SUPREME COURT

October 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In the judgment today in Travelers Insurance Company Ltd v XYZ [2019] UKSC 48 the Supreme Court held that the insurer was not liable to pay the costs of those claimants who had proceeded (unknowingly) against uninsured defendants.  This is…

TRAWLING THROUGH THE CPR: FIXED COSTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: COUNSEL'S FEES INCLUDED IN REGIME: CONSTRUING THE CPR AS A WHOLE

TRAWLING THROUGH THE CPR: FIXED COSTS CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: COUNSEL’S FEES INCLUDED IN REGIME: CONSTRUING THE CPR AS A WHOLE

October 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister Sarah Robson for sending me a copy of the judgment of the Court of Appeal today in  Aldred -v- Cham [2019] EWCA Civ 1780.   It is one of those occasions where the Court of Appeal…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AFTER DEATH: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT IS ENFORCEABLE AFTER DEATH: HIGH COURT JUDGMENT TODAY

October 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Higgins & Co Lawyers Ltd -v- Evans [2019] EWHC 2809 (QB) Mr Justice Pushpinder Saini overturned a decision that a conditional fee agreement was not enforceable after death. THE CASE The deceased had signed a CFA agreement with the…

"NOT ALL JUDGES OR COUNSEL ARE HUMOURLESS AUTOMATONS": NO JUDICIAL BIAS WHEN EVIDENCE GIVEN BY WAY OF A SONG

“NOT ALL JUDGES OR COUNSEL ARE HUMOURLESS AUTOMATONS”: NO JUDICIAL BIAS WHEN EVIDENCE GIVEN BY WAY OF A SONG

October 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

It is not often that appeals over planning decisions make their way to this blog. It must be even rarer for such appeals to consider the question and appropriateness of humour (and song) in the judicial process. That is what…

THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE

THE BACK TO BASICS SERIES: A RUNNING ACCOUNT: READ THEM ALL HERE

October 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Experts, Limitation, Members Content, QOCS, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Witness statements

  The “Back to Basics” series, as the title suggests, deals with some of the basic elements of civil procedure. It covers everything from applications and bundles to the taking of witness statements.  The titles are often prompted by elements…

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS (YET AGAIN...): COMMITTAL ORDER SET ASIDE BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED

CIVIL COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS (YET AGAIN…): COMMITTAL ORDER SET ASIDE BECAUSE DEFENDANT WAS NOT LEGALLY REPRESENTED

October 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Committal proceedings, Members Content

Yet another example of the difficulties arising in civil committal proceedings arises in the Court of Appeal decision today in  O (Committal: Legal Representation) [2019] EWCA Civ 1721.  Legal representation, if requested, is essential if committal proceedings are to be valid….

GILHAM -v- MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: A REMINDER OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS: "MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE WERE LIKELY"

GILHAM -v- MINISTRY OF JUSTICE: A REMINDER OF THE ORIGINAL COMPLAINTS: “MISCARRIAGES OF JUSTICE WERE LIKELY”

October 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The Supreme Court judgment yesterday in Gilham v Ministry of Justice [2019] UKSC 44 provides a landmark ruling on the issue that judges are “workers” and entitled to the protection of the Employment Rights Act 1996. There will be many…

REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: "THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF"

REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: “THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF”

October 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn overturned a decision refusing relief from sanctions.  The Appellant had made payments by cheque rather than by bank transfer.   It is also an important example of the pitfalls caused…

DENTON APPLIED TO OUT OF TIME APPLICATION IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: THE APPLICANT STAYS IN JAIL

DENTON APPLIED TO OUT OF TIME APPLICATION IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: THE APPLICANT STAYS IN JAIL

October 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Committal proceedings, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Lakatamia v SU [2019] EWCA Civ 1626 the Court of Appeal refused an application for permission to appeal out of time in a case where the applicant had been committed to prison for contempt.   “Hysaj establishes that the…

THE "BAD SINGING" CASE GETS TWO ENCORES: JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON KEY ISSUES

THE “BAD SINGING” CASE GETS TWO ENCORES: JUDGE FAILED TO MAKE FINDINGS OF FACT ON KEY ISSUES

October 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

I wrote about the first instance decision in Kogan v Martin & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1645 here.  The Court of Appeal have ordered a retrial in the case.   There are important observations about the role of the judge in…

PROVING THINGS 164:  THE NEED FOR A CAR FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS NOT SELF PROVING AND THE COURT WILL NOT INFER SUCH A NEED.

PROVING THINGS 164: THE NEED FOR A CAR FOR PRIVATE PURPOSES IS NOT SELF PROVING AND THE COURT WILL NOT INFER SUCH A NEED.

October 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content

In Hussain v EUI Ltd [2019] EWHC 2647 (QB) Mr Justice Pepperall dismissed a claimant’s appeal in relation to the assessment of damages. “Need for social and domestic purposes is not self-proving and, in this case, cannot simply be inferred”…

DEFENDANTS - WAKE UP, SERIOUSLY:  A "VERY RELAXED" ATTITUDE TO THE RULES WILL COST YOUR CLIENTS DEAR: APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE REFUSED: REFUSAL CONFIRMED ON APPEAL

DEFENDANTS – WAKE UP, SERIOUSLY: A “VERY RELAXED” ATTITUDE TO THE RULES WILL COST YOUR CLIENTS DEAR: APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE REFUSED: REFUSAL CONFIRMED ON APPEAL

October 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Joan Angela Kember v (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard John Kember, Deceased And On Her Own Behalf And On Behalf of His Dependants) [2019] EWHC 2297 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert upheld a refusal to grant a…

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

 In  Ford & Anor v Bennett & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1604 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs.  The judgment contains a lesson to “additional parties” to litigation. “Parties who…

SOLICITORS WHO ARE REPRESENTED AT COURT TO PROTECT LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE ISSUES ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR COSTS

SOLICITORS WHO ARE REPRESENTED AT COURT TO PROTECT LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE ISSUES ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR COSTS

October 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

One other aspect of the decision in  Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600  that is worth looking at is the appeal in relation to costs. The Court of Appeal rejected the appellants argument that the…

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE PERSISTS AFTER DISSOLUTION OF A COMPANY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE PERSISTS AFTER DISSOLUTION OF A COMPANY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

October 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Addlesee & Ors v Dentons Europe LLP [2019] EWCA Civ 1600 the Court of Appeal held that legal professional privilege survives the dissolution of a limited company.   THE CASE The claimants wanted to bring an action against a…

COURT OF APPEAL TO CONSIDER IMPACT OF TRANSFERRING CASE FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA:

COURT OF APPEAL TO CONSIDER IMPACT OF TRANSFERRING CASE FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA:

September 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Tom Jenkinson from Bolt Burdon Kemp for letting me know that the Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal in the case of  XDE v North Middlesex University Hospital Trust [2019] EWHC 1482 (QB) XDE…

STOP ARGUING WITH THE JUDGE AFTER JUDGMENT IS GIVEN: POST-JUDGMENT SUBMISSIONS LEADS TO CASE GOING OFF THE RAILS

STOP ARGUING WITH THE JUDGE AFTER JUDGMENT IS GIVEN: POST-JUDGMENT SUBMISSIONS LEADS TO CASE GOING OFF THE RAILS

September 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

The judgment today in AR & ML [2019] EWFC 56 is of considerable importance to all those who seek to “re-argue” a case after judgment rather than appeal.  Mostyn J attempts to put an end to what he identified as…

POINTS HAVE TO BE PLEADED: APPLICATION TO AMEND AT TRIAL CORRECTLY DISALLOWED: PLEADINGS ARE THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF EACH PARTY'S CASE ARE KNOWN

POINTS HAVE TO BE PLEADED: APPLICATION TO AMEND AT TRIAL CORRECTLY DISALLOWED: PLEADINGS ARE THERE TO ENSURE THAT THE ESSENTIAL ELEMENT OF EACH PARTY’S CASE ARE KNOWN

September 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

In  Kensington Mortgage Company Ltd v Mallon & Ors [2019] EWHC 2512 (Ch)  Sir Gerald Barling, sitting as a Judge of the High Court, dismissed an appeal against a judge’s refusal to consider a point that was not pleaded.  The…

AMENDMENT OF CLAIM TO JOIN A NEW PARTY WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OVER LIMITATION:  APPEAL AGAINST JOINDER ALLOWED

AMENDMENT OF CLAIM TO JOIN A NEW PARTY WHEN THERE IS AN ISSUE OVER LIMITATION: APPEAL AGAINST JOINDER ALLOWED

September 26, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In Trainer v Cramer Pelmont (a firm) [2019] EWHC 2501 (QB)  Mr Justice Walker examines the provisions of s14A of the Limitation Act in considerable detail.  This is one of those judgments that is likely to be authoritative for years…

PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN'T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH

PROVING THINGS 162: WHEN THE GOVERNMENT DOESN’T HAVE THE COMMONS TOUCH

September 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Constitutional lawyers will be writing about the Supreme Court decision today for decades to come.   However I want to look at the more basic issue of the evidence that was placed before the courts.    This was not a case…

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: LINKS TO JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY

SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT TODAY: LINKS TO JUDGMENT AND SUMMARY

September 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

The judgment and summary of the Supreme Court judgment today in Cherry -v- Advocate General for Scotland can be found here.     … Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium…

PAYING EXPERT'S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND - GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS ...

PAYING EXPERT’S FEES: INFORMING AN EXPERT THAT A HEARING IS CANCELLED AND – GETTING STRUCK OFF THE ROLL OF SOLICITORS …

September 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment in the case of   Clegg v Solicitors Regulation Authority [2019] EWHC 2408. A solicitor was struck off, in circumstances  that could easily have been avoided.   It required the simple step of informing an expert that a trial had…

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS - RE M - THE FULL JUDGMENT: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STRICT PROCEDURAL RULES ARE COMPLIED WITH

COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS – RE M – THE FULL JUDGMENT: IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT THE STRICT PROCEDURAL RULES ARE COMPLIED WITH

September 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Members Content

The case of Re M I wrote on earlier in the week is now available on BAILLI [2019] EWCA Civ 1559. The procedure adopted by the judge is subject to sustained criticism by the Court of Appeal. “the consequences of…

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

September 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content

The decision in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1504 related to a case where a decision was made when the judge was not given relevant papers that had arrived at court. “In…

AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL:  KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE - A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS

AN ABSOLUTE CAR CRASH OF AN APPEAL: KNOW WHAT DOCUMENTS WERE BEFORE THE THE JUDGE – A BASIC ISSUE FOR ALL WOULD BE APPELLANTS

September 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

Appeals are always difficult.  The appellate court has to be persuaded that the first-instance judge was “wrong”, and this is a fairly rigorous test.  It is made far more difficult if the appellate court is given the wrong documents. Particularly…

CIVIL CONTEMPT: THE KANGAROO COURTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM:  THE DANGERS OF NOT FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE

CIVIL CONTEMPT: THE KANGAROO COURTS OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM: THE DANGERS OF NOT FOLLOWING THE CORRECT PROCEDURE

September 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In January this year I wrote “I am starting to lose count of the number of times the Court of Appeal has overturned decisions committing people to prison because of very basic and fundamental failures of procedure.  It is as…

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

AN OFFER TO SETTLE FOR NO DAMAGES CAN STILL BE A VALID PART 36 OFFER: APPEAL AGAINST NO ORDER FOR COSTS ALLOWED (IN PART)

August 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In MR v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1970 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan allowed an appeal as to costs in a issue relating to Part 36. She held that the trial judge had erred in making no…

PART 8 PROCEDURE USED FOR CLAIM FOR £2.6 MILLION: THE CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF - IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

PART 8 PROCEDURE USED FOR CLAIM FOR £2.6 MILLION: THE CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF – IS ANYONE SURPRISED?

August 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

A common practice has occurred of issuing Part 8 proceedings under the MOJ Protocol and “parking” cases there for an extended period.  This is an extremely dangerous practice.  It is even more dangerous if the case that has been parked…

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE'S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE "BUILDING BLOCKS" OF FACT FINDING

COURT OF APPEAL ORDER RETRIAL FOLLOWING JUDGE’S FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REASONS: THE “BUILDING BLOCKS” OF FACT FINDING

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

Attempts to appeal findings of fact are extremely common, so common that I have stopped writing about them.  There is also a common theme – the judge should not have found that, says the appellant: it was a finding open…

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

FIXED COSTS: APPLY TO DEFENDANTS AS WELL: SAUCE FOR THE GOOSE AND THE GANDER

July 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of consent order made in the Court of Appeal.   The Court allowed an appeal, by consent, that the defendant to certain applications was only allowed fixed costs in an…

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE'S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

DELAY OF 18 MONTHS IN GIVING JUDGMENT DID NOT UNDERMINE THE JUDGE’S VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY

July 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Nuttal & Anor v Kerr & Anor [2019] EWHC 1977 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman rejected an argument that an excessive delay in giving judgment meant that the trial judge’s conclusions were innately unreliable.  (The judgment also reviews the authorities…

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, Members Content

  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…

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

RAISING NEW ISSUES ON APPEAL: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS THE LAW: CIRCUIT JUDGE CORRECT TO ALLOW NEW ISSUE TO BE ARGUED IN RELATION TO INTEREST RATES

July 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content

In Notting Hill Finance Ltd v Sheikh [2019] EWCA Civ 1337 the Court of Appeal reviewed the principles relating to new matters being raised on appeal.     “These authorities show that there is no general rule that a case…

ANOTHER POST ON THE AUTHORITIES BUNDLE: THE SUPREME COURT SAY THEY SHOULD BE IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER: GUIDANCE FROM THE NICE LAWYERS OF TWITTER

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

Earlier today I reported on a comment from the Court of Appeal that it did not help for authorities to be placed in alphabetical order.  I commented on the absence of clear guidance.  Here we look at the views from…

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, Members Content

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…

NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING  - NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

NO YOU ARE NOT GOING TO RECOVER £25,000 FOR LEADING COUNSEL TO ATTEND A LOW LEVEL HEARING – NOT EVEN ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

July 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Timokhina v Timokhin [2019] EWCA Civ 1284 the Court of Appeal overturned an order that a mother pay counsel’s fees of certain hearings. The judgment is interesting in that costs were disallowed (inter partes) as unreasonable even when the…

PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

PROPORTIONALITY AND PREMIUMS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASES: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

July 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In West -v- Stockport NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 1220 the Court of Appeal considered the question of proportionality in relation to clinical negligence actions and the “recoverable” element of ATE insurance.  I am grateful to Sean Linley for…

PREPARE A NON-COMPLIANT BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES: THE RISKS OF COSTS BEING DISALLOWED: COURT OF APPEAL SOUNDS A WARNING

PREPARE A NON-COMPLIANT BUNDLE OF AUTHORITIES: THE RISKS OF COSTS BEING DISALLOWED: COURT OF APPEAL SOUNDS A WARNING

July 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content

In  the judgment today in Parr v Keystone Healthcare Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 1246 Lord Justice Lewison expressed concerns about the failure to follow the Practice Direction on the citation of authorities.   THE CASE The Court of…

APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT'S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE

APPEAL ON COSTS BUDGETING : CLAIMANT’S APPEAL UNSUCCESSFUL: AN OFFER AS TO COSTS DOES NOT BECOME THE BENCHMARK FIGURE

July 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

In Gray v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2019] EWHC 1780 (QB) Mr Justice Lambert dismissed the claimant’s appeal from cost budgeting decisions.    The judgment contains important observations about the nature of cost budgeting hearings and appeals on…

THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT

THE GENERAL DUTY ON LAWYERS TO INFORM THE COURT IF IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE TIME ESTIMATE IS INCORRECT

July 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is a judgment today on BAILLI in a family case. The case appears to be subject to reporting restrictions so I do not propose to link to it, or even name it, until these are clarified.  However what is…

"A BIT OF A SHORT BALL": STATING THE JUDGE'S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS

“A BIT OF A SHORT BALL”: STATING THE JUDGE’S PRELIMINARY VIEW AS TO CREDIBILITY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO BIAS

July 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

There is an interesting discussion as to Judicial bias in the judgment of Mrs Justice Theis in X v Y (Permission to Appeal) [2019] EWHC 1713 (Fam). “The interjections by the judge during the hearing should be viewed not as…

← Previous 1 … 12 13 14 … 19 Next →

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

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE…
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU “OWN” IT…
  • 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
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS IN CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: WEBINAR 19th MAY 2026: USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRES AND CHECKLISTS INCLUDED
  • 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

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

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.