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 14
ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A "SINGULARLY DIM VIEW" OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

June 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…

PROPORTIONALITY: A WARNING AGAINST A "CLIENT-CENTRIC" APPROACH: £74,000 REDUCED TO £15,000: HIGH COURT CASE ON APPEAL

PROPORTIONALITY: A WARNING AGAINST A “CLIENT-CENTRIC” APPROACH: £74,000 REDUCED TO £15,000: HIGH COURT CASE ON APPEAL

June 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In Malmsten v Bohinc [2019] EWHC 1386 (Ch) Mr Justice Marcus Smith allowed a paying party’s appeal in an assessment and reduced a bill from £74,328.90 to £15,000.  There is a detailed consideration of how the proportionality test should be…

FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL - NOT A SEARCH FOR "THE TRUTH"

FINDINGS OF FACT AND THE TASK OF THE TRIAL JUDGE: A REASONED DETERMINATION OF THE DISPUTE ON THE EVIDENCE AT TRIAL – NOT A SEARCH FOR “THE TRUTH”

June 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There has been a spate of cases recently relating to appeals of findings of fact by a trial judge. There are major problems in such appeals, this is illustrated by the judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Baker in Auliffe &…

"VERY UNFORTUNATELY, ON TWO OCCASIONS... THE ... JUDGE FELL ASLEEP": APPEAL ALLOWED

“VERY UNFORTUNATELY, ON TWO OCCASIONS… THE … JUDGE FELL ASLEEP”: APPEAL ALLOWED

May 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Members Content

In Science Museum Group v Wess [2019] UKEAT 0260 HHJ Auberach made a finding that the Employment Judge had fallen asleep. The appeal was allowed on this ground alone. “I find as a fact that, very unfortunately, on the afternoon…

DRAFT JUDGMENTS "ARE NOT AN INVITATION TO TREAT": COURT OF APPEAL SEEKS TO PUT AN END TO REQUEST THAT ARE "CONFRONTATIONAL AND DISRESPECTFUL"

DRAFT JUDGMENTS “ARE NOT AN INVITATION TO TREAT”: COURT OF APPEAL SEEKS TO PUT AN END TO REQUEST THAT ARE “CONFRONTATIONAL AND DISRESPECTFUL”

May 31, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content

In I Children [2019] EWCA Civ 898 the Court of Appeal gave clear guidance to practitioners who write to the court seeking “clarification” of a written judgment.  There are clear parameters and the parties should not use the draft judgment…

COURT OF APPEAL: NOT TOO KEEN ON PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR "ACADEMIC" ARGUMENTS

COURT OF APPEAL: NOT TOO KEEN ON PERMISSION BEING GRANTED FOR “ACADEMIC” ARGUMENTS

May 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

In J-S (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 894, the Court of Appeal declined to hear an argument that was “academic”. It also gave guidance to judges when considering applications for permission to appeal on the “other compelling reason for an appeal”…

PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE RELEVANT TEST: NO REQUIREMENT THAT SUCCESS BE PROBABLE  OR MORE LIKELY THAN NOT

PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE RELEVANT TEST: NO REQUIREMENT THAT SUCCESS BE PROBABLE OR MORE LIKELY THAN NOT

May 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content

In  R (A Child) [2019] EWCA Civ 895 the Court of Appeal set out the criteria for permission for appeal. “The test for the grant of permission to appeal on an application to the Court of Appeal or to the…

ANOTHER TRIAL BUNDLE CASE: ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE TRIAL BUNDLE: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT DISMISSED

ANOTHER TRIAL BUNDLE CASE: ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO PREPARE TRIAL BUNDLE: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT DISMISSED

May 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Al-Balhaa v Raphael & Ors [2019] EWHC 1323 (QB) Mr Justice Nicol upheld a finding that the action was struck out because of the claimant’s failure to prepare a trial bundle and relief from sanctions should not be granted. …

APPELLANT'S COSTS OF APPEAL WERE "MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE" : COURT OF APPEAL  REDUCES £71,072 SCHEDULE TO £13,000

APPELLANT’S COSTS OF APPEAL WERE “MANIFESTLY UNREASONABLE” : COURT OF APPEAL REDUCES £71,072 SCHEDULE TO £13,000

May 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

A short postcript to the Court of Appeal judgment in Jofa Ltd & Anor v Benherst Finance Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 899 makes some telling remarks about the cost of appeals. “the amount of costs claimed by the…

PART 36 OFFER ON COSTS THAT STATES IT IS "EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST" IS STILL A VALID OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

PART 36 OFFER ON COSTS THAT STATES IT IS “EXCLUSIVE OF INTEREST” IS STILL A VALID OFFER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

May 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to barrister Jamie Carpenter for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Nicol in Horne -v- Prescot (No 1) Ltd 2019 1322 (QB). The case relates to whether a Part 36 offer on costs,…

DECISION OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR JUDICIAL TREATMENT: "TAKING UP THE CUDGELS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION"

DECISION OVERTURNED BECAUSE OF UNFAIR JUDICIAL TREATMENT: “TAKING UP THE CUDGELS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION”

May 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Appeals, Case Management, Members Content

There are few cases that are overturned on the grounds of unfair judicial treatment. However this was one of grounds the appeal was allowed today in Serafin v Malkiewicz & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 852 “On numerous occasions, the Judge…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE UPHILL BATTLE

May 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Staechelin & Ors v ACLBDD Holdings Ltd & Ors [2019] EWCA Civ 817 Lord Justice Lewison set out  a “cut out and keep” guide for parties attempting to appeal findings of fact. A reminder of the uphill battle that appellants…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: SEEKING FURTHER INFORMATION AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF EXPERT EVIDENCE

May 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content

I am grateful to Charles Bagot QC for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Birss in Price -v-  Cwm Taf University Health Board  [2019] EWHC 938 (QB).   A transcript of the case is available on the…

DEFENDANT'S PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD OFFER THAT REFERRED TO UNPLEADED COUNTERCLAIM AND SOUGHT 8% INTEREST AFTER EXPIRY

DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD OFFER THAT REFERRED TO UNPLEADED COUNTERCLAIM AND SOUGHT 8% INTEREST AFTER EXPIRY

May 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Calonne Construction Ltd v Dawnus Southern Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 754 the Court of Appeal upheld a finding that a defendant’s Part 36 offer was a valid one. The offer related to a counterclaim that had yet to be…

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN "INTERIM" APPLICATION

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN “INTERIM” APPLICATION

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose    for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Carr in Parsa -v- D.S. Smith PLC (25th March 2019)  Parsa v D.S. Smith PLC – Approved Judgment -…

DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL

DOES THE BASIC LAW OF EVIDENCE AND PROCEDURE RUN IN THE IMMIGRATION IMMIGRATION UPPER TRIBUNAL? A MATTER OF CONCERN TO US ALL

April 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The Immigration Upper Tribunal does not appear to recognise some of the basic principles of civil evidence and appellate jurisdiction.  Certainly this is the impression you get when reading the judgment of Lord Justice Davis in Palash v Secretary of…

FIXED COSTS, CASES OVER £25,000, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BASKET OF CASES

FIXED COSTS, CASES OVER £25,000, EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AND THE BASKET OF CASES

April 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

In Ferri v Gill [2019] EWHC 952 (QB)Mr Justice Stewart considered the relevant criteria to be applied when a claimant argued that fixed costs should not be applied to a case that had started in the portal but was settled…

FIXED COSTS WHEN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SETTLES FOR MORE THAN £25,000: "NEW RULES" TO BE APPLIED AND FIXED COSTS APPLY

FIXED COSTS WHEN A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION SETTLES FOR MORE THAN £25,000: “NEW RULES” TO BE APPLIED AND FIXED COSTS APPLY

April 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to  Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW  for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Sephton QC in  Lovatt -v- Lew Diecastings Ltd (County Court in Manchester, 4th December 2018).  Lovatt v LEW Diecastings Ltd…

BARRISTERS' FEES ARE "PROPERTY": COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY (A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE TOO...)

BARRISTERS’ FEES ARE “PROPERTY”: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY (A HUMAN RIGHTS ISSUE TOO…)

April 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Gwinnutt v George & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 656 the Court of Appeal held that a barrister’s fees (paid under the old pre-contractual arrangements) were, in fact,  “property” (at least for the purpose of insolvency).  There is also an…

AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO APPEAL  JUDGE'S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION  UNDER S.33 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT

AN UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPT TO APPEAL JUDGE’S EXERCISE OF DISCRETION UNDER S.33 OF THE LIMITATION ACT 1980 IN FAVOUR OF THE CLAIMANT

April 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In HMG3 Ltd & Anor v Dunn [2019] EWHC 882 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip upheld the findings of a Circuit Judge who exercised their discretion under Section 33 in favour of a claimant. THE CASE The claim is brought by…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHERE MONEY PAID 17 HOURS LATE:"A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE IS NECESSARY"

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHERE MONEY PAID 17 HOURS LATE:”A SENSE OF PERSPECTIVE IS NECESSARY”

April 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Summary assessment,

In Khandanpour v Chambers [2019] EWCA Civ 570 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal in relation to a refusal to give relief from sanctions.  A delay in payment of 17 hours of part of the moneys ordered by the…

AMENDMENT, FOOTBALL AND THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT SOLICITOR: SIX KEY POINTS (WITH THE LAST ONE BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL)

AMENDMENT, FOOTBALL AND THE ALLEGEDLY NEGLIGENT SOLICITOR: SIX KEY POINTS (WITH THE LAST ONE BEING THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL)

April 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content

There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Mrs Justice O’Farrell in Jenkins v JCP Solicitors Ltd [2019] EWHC 852 (QB). 1. It provides yet another example of a claimant suing the wrong entity The firm of solicitors…

PERSONAL INJURY SUCCESS FEES: REDUCTION TO 15% CONFIRMED BY COURT OF APPEAL: ATE INSURANCE IS RECOVERABLE AS A DISBURSEMENT

PERSONAL INJURY SUCCESS FEES: REDUCTION TO 15% CONFIRMED BY COURT OF APPEAL: ATE INSURANCE IS RECOVERABLE AS A DISBURSEMENT

April 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Herbert v H H Law Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ 527 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision on a solicitor and own client assessment that the additional liability in a simple personal injury case should be 15%. It allowed…

COSTS, MEDICAL AGENCIES, VAT:  SOLICITORS CAN RECOVER VAT PAID TO MEDICAL AGENCIES ON ASSESSMENT

COSTS, MEDICAL AGENCIES, VAT: SOLICITORS CAN RECOVER VAT PAID TO MEDICAL AGENCIES ON ASSESSMENT

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

In British Airways Plc v Prosser [2019] EWCA Civ 547 the Court of Appeal considered whether it was appropriate for a claimant’s solicitor to recover the costs of VAT paid to medical agencies. THE CASE The claimant succeeded in a…

TOO MANY DOCUMENTS, TOO MANY AUTHORITIES: A REMINDER OF AN OLD FASHIONED REMEDY: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE

TOO MANY DOCUMENTS, TOO MANY AUTHORITIES: A REMINDER OF AN OLD FASHIONED REMEDY: BEWARE YE, BEWARE YE

March 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Written advocacy

When commenting on a recent case about committal in the Court of Appeal Professor Dominic Regan made the point that the first part of the hearing had been marked by judicial comments about the size of the bundles and number…

SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER WHEN THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR: THE RULES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED

SETTING ASIDE AN ORDER WHEN THE DEFENDANT DID NOT APPEAR: THE RULES SHOULD BE FOLLOWED

March 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

There are several unusual aspects about the decision of Salix Homes v Mantato [2019] EWCA Civ 445, not least it is an appeal directly from a Deputy District Judge to the Court of Appeal. In addition to the point of  law…

A SECOND ACTION TO SET ASIDE AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD: SUPREME COURT DECISION: THE "BARE KNUCKLE FIGHT" OF THE LAW

A SECOND ACTION TO SET ASIDE AN EARLIER JUDGMENT OBTAINED BY FRAUD: SUPREME COURT DECISION: THE “BARE KNUCKLE FIGHT” OF THE LAW

March 21, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Takhar v Gracefield Developments Ltd & Ors [2019] UKSC 13 the Supreme Court held that a claimant could bring an action to set aside an earlier judgment which, it is alleged, was obtained by fraud.  The judgment deals with two…

INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS IN HIGH VALUE CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF CASHFLOW RECOGNISED IN SHEFFIELD

INTERIM PAYMENTS ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS IN HIGH VALUE CASES: THE IMPORTANCE OF CASHFLOW RECOGNISED IN SHEFFIELD

March 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Jim Gladman from Switalskis, solicitors for sending me a copy of the approved judgment of HHJ Robinson in I -v- Hull & East Yorkshire NHS Trust (25th February 2019).  A copy of that judgment is available…

PERMISSION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO PLEAD NEW CASE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD REFUSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: STICK TO THE PLEADINGS

PERMISSION TO AMEND PLEADINGS TO PLEAD NEW CASE AFTER EXPIRY OF LIMITATION PERIOD REFUSED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: STICK TO THE PLEADINGS

March 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

In Samba Financial Group v Byers & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 416 the Court of Appeal overturned an order allowing the claimant permission to amend its case.  In essence the Court of Appeal decided that where a court was considering an…

PROVING THINGS 144: THAT TEMPTATION TO PUT MATTERS IN THE SKELETON THAT AREN'T ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE: ALSO - THE POWER OF LISTS

PROVING THINGS 144: THAT TEMPTATION TO PUT MATTERS IN THE SKELETON THAT AREN’T ESTABLISHED BY THE EVIDENCE: ALSO – THE POWER OF LISTS

March 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Written advocacy

We have looked before at attempts to use a skeleton argument to introduce evidence (often made in desperation to be fair). An example of this can be seen in a short passage in the judgment in Schettini v Silvestri & Ors…

AN ANONYMOUS DRIVER CANNOT BE SUED: YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO SERVE...

AN ANONYMOUS DRIVER CANNOT BE SUED: YOU’VE GOT TO HAVE SOMEWHERE TO SERVE…

February 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Insurance, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In the judgment today  Cameron v Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd [2019] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court overturned the Court of Appeal decision in relation to service when there is an unknown driver.  The court cannot make an order that service…

SHOULD A "RECKLESS" MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

SHOULD A “RECKLESS” MEDICAL EXPERT GO TO JAIL? WATCH THE ARGUMENTS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Last year I wrote about the judgment in Liverpool Victoria Insurance Company Ltd v Khan & Ors [2018] EWHC 2581 (QB). Among other things in that judgment it was found that a medical expert’s recklessness amounted to contempt of court.  The expert…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN WITNESS STATEMENT SERVED LATE: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED WHEN WITNESS STATEMENT SERVED LATE: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

February 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In  Petrou v Lambrou (t/a KCJ Builders) [2019] EWHC 166 (Comm) Mr Justice Freedman upheld the decision of a circuit judge who granted the defendant relief from sanctions when a witness statement was served late. Interestingly the judge, on appeal, exercised…

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

CONDITIONAL FEE AGREEMENT DID NOT CONTINUE AFTER A SOLICITOR HAD CEASED TO ACT: DEFENDANT NOT LIABLE TO PAY COSTS TO FIRST SET OF SOLICITORS

February 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Wulwik in Roman -v- AXA Insurance PLC (13/12/2018).   Roman v AXA Insurance [2018] (1) The judge found that a CFA with…

THE ABSENCE OF KEY DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE EASILY IGNORED: CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL: JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

THE ABSENCE OF KEY DOCUMENTS CANNOT BE EASILY IGNORED: CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUCCESSFUL: JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT OVERTURNED ON APPEAL

February 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Mackenzie v Alcoa Manufacturing (GB) Ltd [2019] EWHC 149 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham overturned a judgment in favour of a defendant. The defendant’s failure to produce key documents, or give any explanation for their not being available,  was a major…

ANOTHER CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT OVERTURNED: BREACHES OF REQUIREMENT FOR A FAIR HEARING MEANT ORDER MUST BE QUASHED

ANOTHER CIVIL CONTEMPT OF COURT OVERTURNED: BREACHES OF REQUIREMENT FOR A FAIR HEARING MEANT ORDER MUST BE QUASHED

January 30, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Committal proceedings, Litigants in person, Members Content

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 though all the strictures against fair…

THE SPI NORTH (NON-ADMISSION IN PLEADING CASE) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE SECOND POINT: COMPELLING EVIDENCE NEEDED AND NO SATELLITE LITIGATION PLEASE

THE SPI NORTH (NON-ADMISSION IN PLEADING CASE) IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: THE SECOND POINT: COMPELLING EVIDENCE NEEDED AND NO SATELLITE LITIGATION PLEASE

January 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

Yesterday’s post on SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 7  concentrated upon the Court of Appeal guidance in relation to the drafting of a pleading.  However the second point on which the claimant’s appeal …

A WHOLE COURT OF APPEAL CASE ABOUT WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DRAFT A "NON-ADMISSION": NO DUTY ON A DEFENDANT TO SEEK OUT INFORMATION FROM A THIRD PARTY WHEN DRAFTING A DEFENCE

A WHOLE COURT OF APPEAL CASE ABOUT WHETHER IT IS APPROPRIATE TO DRAFT A “NON-ADMISSION”: NO DUTY ON A DEFENDANT TO SEEK OUT INFORMATION FROM A THIRD PARTY WHEN DRAFTING A DEFENCE

January 17, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

In the judgment today in SPI North Ltd v Swiss Post International (UK) Ltd & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 7 the Court of Appeal carried out a close analysis of the rules relating to pleading a defence. In particular the…

YOU CAN'T MAKE SOMEONE BANKRUPT IF THEY'VE GOT NOTHING: AN INTERESTING APPEAL

YOU CAN’T MAKE SOMEONE BANKRUPT IF THEY’VE GOT NOTHING: AN INTERESTING APPEAL

January 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Lock v Aylesbury Vale District Council [2018] EWHC 2015 (Ch) HHJ Hodge QC (sitting as a High Court judge) allowed an appeal against the granting of a bankruptcy petition. Essentially the petition should have not have been granted because the…

APPEALS FROM DISTRICT JUDGES WHEN CASES HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO THEM:  A POINT TO WATCH

APPEALS FROM DISTRICT JUDGES WHEN CASES HAVE BEEN RELEASED TO THEM: A POINT TO WATCH

January 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Morgan in Hilton v Cosnier [2018] EWHC 3728 (Ch) highlights a practical issue that is easy to overlook.  Cases, that are normally tried by a Circuit Judge, can be released to a District Judge. Appeals from…

"A MISUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER":  A WITNESS SPEAKING TO LAWYER IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE  DOES NOT JUSTIFY COMMITTAL OR STRIKING OUT A CASE

“A MISUSE OF JUDICIAL POWER”: A WITNESS SPEAKING TO LAWYER IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE DOES NOT JUSTIFY COMMITTAL OR STRIKING OUT A CASE

January 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Members Content, Striking out

In the judgment today in Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ the Court of Appeal robustly overturned a decision committing a witness to prison and striking out a case.  It was found that the trial judge had,…

THE DEFENDANT'S "WRONG" APPLICATION TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION WAS STILL VALID: DEFENDANT ALLOWED EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO CORRECT APPLICATION

THE DEFENDANT’S “WRONG” APPLICATION TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION WAS STILL VALID: DEFENDANT ALLOWED EXTENSION OF TIME AND TO CORRECT APPLICATION

January 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Twelve years ago, in  Hoddinott and others v Persimmon Homes (Wessex) Limited [2007] EWCA Civ 1203; [2008] 1 WLR 806, the Court of Appeal held that the correct way for a defendant to challenge the validity of a claim form was to issue…

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: SERVICE OF CLAIM FORM BY UNAUTHORISED BODY DOES NOT RENDER SERVICE VOID (ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL NAUGHTY)

CLAIM FORM CASE IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: SERVICE OF CLAIM FORM BY UNAUTHORISED BODY DOES NOT RENDER SERVICE VOID (ALTHOUGH IT IS STILL NAUGHTY)

January 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

We have managed to get to the 15th day of the year without a service of the claim form case, to compensate for this there are two today.   In Ndole Assets Ltd v Designer M&E Services UK Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ…

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS AFTER REFUSING TO PAY PRE-ACTION COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO GIVE PERMISSION TO APPEAL

DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS AFTER REFUSING TO PAY PRE-ACTION COSTS: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES TO GIVE PERMISSION TO APPEAL

January 7, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In November last year I wrote about the case of Ayton -v- RSM Bentley Bennison & Ors [2018] EWHC 2851 (QB).  This was a case in which the defendant refused to pay cost incurred prior to issue. Proceedings were issued and…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: BE SUCCINCT AND TO THE POINT: "THE ISSUE WAS ALL BUT LOST IN THE PLETHORA OF PAPER": COURT OF APPEAL FIRES WARNING SHOT

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: BE SUCCINCT AND TO THE POINT: “THE ISSUE WAS ALL BUT LOST IN THE PLETHORA OF PAPER”: COURT OF APPEAL FIRES WARNING SHOT

January 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

 Now that Lord Justice Jackson has retired someone needs to take his place to provide the (more or less quarterly) reminder to practitioners to keep skeleton arguments short and to the point.   Step in Lord Justice Hickinbottom in Harverye v The…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 21: PLEADING IN THE ALTERNATIVE:  BINKS -v- SECURICOR

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 21: PLEADING IN THE ALTERNATIVE: BINKS -v- SECURICOR

January 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Members Content, Statements of Truth

Can a claimant plead two alternative cases?  This is an issue that often arises in personal injury litigation, where the basic facts are disputed.  A claimant may wish to argue that the defendant remains liable – even on the defendant’s…

ADJOURNING A HEARING BECAUSE OF A SICK NOTE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS TO ESTABLISH UNFITNESS TO ATTEND HEARING

ADJOURNING A HEARING BECAUSE OF A SICK NOTE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: MEDICAL EVIDENCE HAS TO ESTABLISH UNFITNESS TO ATTEND HEARING

December 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

There have been a number of cases recently relating to applications of hearings on health grounds, in particular the adequacy of the evidence. The relevant principles were reviewed by the Court of Appeal today in General Medical Council v Hayat [2018]…

CASES MUST BE DECIDED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN PREJUDICE: JUDGE TELLING COUNSEL TO "GET A LIFE" MAY INDICATE PREJUDGMENT

CASES MUST BE DECIDED ON EVIDENCE RATHER THAN PREJUDICE: JUDGE TELLING COUNSEL TO “GET A LIFE” MAY INDICATE PREJUDGMENT

December 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Vassilliou -v- The NFU Mutual Insurance Society Limited (Central London County Court 9th July 2018) Mr Recorder Cohen Q.C. allowed an appeal by a claimant.  He held that issues of mitigation of loss can only relate to matters that…

THE ASSIGNMENT  (OR NOVATION) OF CFAS: BOXING PROMOTER'S APPEAL SUFFERS KNOCKOUT BLOW BEFORE A PUNCH WAS THROWN

THE ASSIGNMENT (OR NOVATION) OF CFAS: BOXING PROMOTER’S APPEAL SUFFERS KNOCKOUT BLOW BEFORE A PUNCH WAS THROWN

December 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Warren v Hill Dickinson LLP [2018] EWHC 3322 (QB) the proposed appellant did not get permission to appeal against a decision that an assigned (or novated) CFA remained valid. THE CASE The claimant argued that conditional fee agreements he had…

CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION

CROSS-EXAMINATION: THE DUTY TO PUT A CASE: A GEM OF A DECISION

November 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In W Nagel (A Firm) v Pluczenik Diamond Company NV [2018] EWCA Civ 2640 the Court of Appeal made an important observation about the duty of a cross-examiner to put their client’s case to an opposing witness. This provides an opportunity…

← Previous 1 … 13 14 15 … 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)

Top Posts

  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: "THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES..."
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE "A GREAT MYSTERY" TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS...)

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.