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 15
CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING  LEADING QUESTIONS

CIVIL EVIDENCE AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON : THE DANGERS OF A JUDGE ASKING LEADING QUESTIONS

November 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Litigants in person, Members Content

In Global Corporate Ltd v Hale [2018] EWCA Civ 2618 the Court of Appeal emphasised the dangers of a judge asking  leading questions of a witness. It is a case that highlights the difficulties of trials involving litigants in person. THE…

COST BUDGETING: THE PARTIES MUST KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: LEAVING HOURLY RATES "OPEN" IS INAPPROPRIATE

COST BUDGETING: THE PARTIES MUST KNOW WHERE THEY STAND: LEAVING HOURLY RATES “OPEN” IS INAPPROPRIATE

November 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

I am grateful  Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp to for sending me a copy of the decision of Mr Justice Jacobs in Yirenki -v- Ministry of Defence [2018] EWHC 3102 (QB).  The judge allowed an appeal against a cost budgeting…

ANOTHER CASE OF SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM GOING AWRY: GO ON - DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

ANOTHER CASE OF SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM GOING AWRY: GO ON – DICE WITH PROCEDURAL DEATH: WHAT COULD POSSIBLY GO WRONG?

November 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

When lecturing at the Zenith Chambers personal injury course this Thursday I only offered one prediction for civil procedure: “I’ll be here next year talking about claim form cases reported over the previous 12 months where things have gone wrong.” …

ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: DENTON PRINCIPLES NOT ENGAGED IN FAILING TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND MEDICAL REPORT

ACTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: DENTON PRINCIPLES NOT ENGAGED IN FAILING TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND MEDICAL REPORT

November 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In the judgment today in  Mark v Universal Coatings & Services Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 3206 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer allowed an appeal against an action being struck out.  The case has many procedural complexities.  Here we look at…

YOU CANNOT ARGUE A "NEW" CASE AT THE APPEAL STAGE: "RACING" DRIVERS NOT INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL JOINT ENTERPRISE: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT DAMAGES AWARDED

YOU CANNOT ARGUE A “NEW” CASE AT THE APPEAL STAGE: “RACING” DRIVERS NOT INVOLVED IN A CRIMINAL JOINT ENTERPRISE: FATAL ACCIDENT ACT DAMAGES AWARDED

November 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Fatal Accidents, Members Content

In Wallett & Ors v Vickers [2018] EWHC 3088 (QB) Mr Justice Males overturned a decision in favour of the defendant and awarded damages to the estate of a deceased driver. The important procedural issue is that the defendant were not…

LIVE COURT OF APPEAL STREAMING - GIVES YOU A GRANDSTAND SEAT

LIVE COURT OF APPEAL STREAMING – GIVES YOU A GRANDSTAND SEAT

November 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Advocacy, Appeals, Members Content

The Court of Appeal pilot scheme for live streaming will start on Thursday, details are available on the Court and Tribunals Judiciary website. THE FIRST MATCH… The first case to be heard  with live streaming concerns West Ham United football…

PROVING THINGS 132: BUNDLES, BURDENS OF PROOF AND GO-KARTS: CLAIMANT MANAGES TO CROSS THE WINNING LINE ON APPEAL

PROVING THINGS 132: BUNDLES, BURDENS OF PROOF AND GO-KARTS: CLAIMANT MANAGES TO CROSS THE WINNING LINE ON APPEAL

November 8, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment in Cowley Property Investment Ltd v Oxford Karting Ltd [2018] EWHC 2824 (Ch) contains a consideration of the rule that documents in an agreed trial bundle are admissible. It is a case all about proving things without calling evidence….

RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT HEARING : NEVERTHELESS SURVIVES A COSTS ORDER ON APPEAL

RESPONDENTS ALLOWED TO COMMENT AT HEARING : NEVERTHELESS SURVIVES A COSTS ORDER ON APPEAL

November 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Bhogal & Anor v Knight [2018] EWHC 2952 (Ch) the appellants failed in their appeal following an order that the respondent pay the costs of their initial application. The procedure described in the judgment is instructive.  It was yet another…

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 5:  IF YOU DON'T PAY COSTS BEFORE ISSUE IT COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE AFTERWARDS

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 5: IF YOU DON’T PAY COSTS BEFORE ISSUE IT COULD BE VERY EXPENSIVE AFTERWARDS

November 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to Sam Hayman from Bolt Burdon Kemp for sending me a copy of the High Court decision in Ayton -v- RSM Bentley Bennison & Ors [2018] EWHC 2851 (QB). It is one of those cases that illustrate…

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT - AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

TRYING TO APPEAL FINDINGS OF FACT AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS VERY DIFFICULT – AND THE TCC IS NO DIFFERENT TO OTHER COURTS

October 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Lord Justice Coulson used the judgment in Wheeldon Brothers Waste Ltd v Millennium Insurance Company Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 2403 to remind (some) litigators of  some key principles in relation to appeals on findings of fact.   He emphasised that the Technology…

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE "ACCEPTANCE" OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE “ACCEPTANCE” OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

October 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Part 36, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Sanctions, Serving documents, Striking out

In Devoy-Williams -v- High Cartwright & Amin [2018] EWHC 2815 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk upheld a decision that an action was struck out and that relief from sanctions should not be granted. It is a reminder (amongst other things)  of…

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR'S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE - THREE TIMES

ADVISING YOUR CLIENT ON LITIGATION RISKS 4: THE SCOPE OF THE SOLICITOR’S RETAINER: TURN DOWN AN OFFER OF £500,000 AND LOSE – THREE TIMES

October 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation

In  Lyons v Fox Williams LLP [2018] EWCA Civ 2347 the Court of Appeal turned down the claimant’s appeal.  The claimant had been unsuccessful in an action for professional negligence against a firm of solicitors. He was equally unsuccessful on appeal….

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): "LATE EVIDENCE" SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DO YOU KNOW ABOUT CPR 32.5(4): “LATE EVIDENCE” SHOULD BE HARD TO ADDUCE

October 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Witness statements

In the judgment today in The Catholic Child Welfare Society (Diocese of Middlesbrough) & Ors v CD [2018] EWCA Civ 2342 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal against a claimant being successful in a Section 33 application.  There is an…

MARMITE: SKELETON ARGUMENTS: "SO CALLED": ATTEMPTS TO APPEAL THE FACTS: A SPREAD OF ISSUES CONSIDERED

MARMITE: SKELETON ARGUMENTS: “SO CALLED”: ATTEMPTS TO APPEAL THE FACTS: A SPREAD OF ISSUES CONSIDERED

October 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Solicitors Regulation Authority v Day & Ors [2018] EWHC 2726 the Divisional Court rejected the SRA’s appeal against a decision of the Solicitors’ Disciplinary Tribunal. There are some interesting comments about the number of documents and the length of skeleton’s…

LIMITATION PERIODS AT SEA:  A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM THE SUPREME COURT: A WAKE UP CALL FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS -YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DIFFERING LIMITATION PERIODS

LIMITATION PERIODS AT SEA: A CAUTIONARY TALE FROM THE SUPREME COURT: A WAKE UP CALL FOR PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS -YOU MUST KNOW ABOUT DIFFERING LIMITATION PERIODS

October 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

This blog has, on many occasions, warned about the dangers posed by “different” limitation periods.  This danger can be seen in the decision of the Supreme Court today in  Warner v Scapa Flow Charters (Scotland) [2018] UKSC 52.  I must emphasise…

PROVING THINGS 129: IMPATIENT PATIENT DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION: SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY

PROVING THINGS 129: IMPATIENT PATIENT DID NOT BREAK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION: SUPREME COURT DECISION TODAY

October 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Members Content

The Supreme Court decision today in Darnley -v- Croydon Health Service NHS Trust [2018]UKSC 50 marks a development in the law of negligence, and also in relation to proving causation. “Far from constituting a break in the chain of causation,…

APPEALING A SECTION 33 DECISION - IS HARD TO DO: KIMATHI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

APPEALING A SECTION 33 DECISION – IS HARD TO DO: KIMATHI IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

October 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In refusing permission to appeal in Kimathi & Ors v Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2018] EWCA Civ 2213 the Court of Appeal emphasised the difficulty involved in appealing a discretionary decision made under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. “The…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED WHEN RESPONDENT'S NOTICE SERVED LATE: DENTON CONSIDERED

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED WHEN RESPONDENT’S NOTICE SERVED LATE: DENTON CONSIDERED

October 1, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Livewest Homes Ltd v Bamber [2018] EWHC 2454 (QB) Mr Justice Dingemans considered the issue of relief from sanctions when a Respondent’s Notice was served late. It is a useful reminder of the importance of serving a respondent’s notice and…

QOCS PROTECTION COVERS A COUNTER-CLAIMING DEFENDANT: SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

QOCS PROTECTION COVERS A COUNTER-CLAIMING DEFENDANT: SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT

September 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to barrister Andrew Lyons for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Freedman in Ketchion -v- McEwan (28th June 2018), a copy of which is available here, 1061737_Ketchion v McEwan_Judgment for Approval_26 6 18.  It is…

SECOND ACTION NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: CLAIM IN DECEIT CAN CONTINUE AFTER CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE FAILED: THE CLAIMANT NEED NOT HAVE GAMBLED ON FRAUD CLAIM FIRST TIME AROUND

SECOND ACTION NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: CLAIM IN DECEIT CAN CONTINUE AFTER CLAIM IN NEGLIGENCE FAILED: THE CLAIMANT NEED NOT HAVE GAMBLED ON FRAUD CLAIM FIRST TIME AROUND

September 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Second set of proceedings

In Playboy Club London Ltd v Banca Nazionale Del Lavoro Spa [2018] EWCA Civ 2025 the Court of Appeal overturned a ruling that an action in deceit was an abuse of process. The claimant’s action in negligence failed because there was…

DENTON PRINCIPLES MEANS THAT APPEAL BITES THE DUST: CONFUSION AND BEING "LOST IN THE FOREST" ARE NOT GOOD GROUNDS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

DENTON PRINCIPLES MEANS THAT APPEAL BITES THE DUST: CONFUSION AND BEING “LOST IN THE FOREST” ARE NOT GOOD GROUNDS FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME

September 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles are considered in detail in the judgment of Edward Murray (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Sabesan v London Borough of Waltham Forest [2018] EWHC 2373 (Admin).   The judgment confirms that the Denton principles are applicable to…

SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, CPR 6.15 AND IS THE ISSUE OF A "SECOND ACTION" AN ABUSE OF PROCESS?

SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS, CPR 6.15 AND IS THE ISSUE OF A “SECOND ACTION” AN ABUSE OF PROCESS?

September 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

I am grateful to Anthony Okuma of Duncan Lewis solicitors  to for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Richard Roberts in Sajid -v- Nuur (Central London County court 30/7/18).  This covers two separate issues. Firstly a claimant’s…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: THE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE IS A CONTEXTUAL EVALUATION FOR THE JUDGE: MEDICAL RECORDS ARE NOT DEFINITIVE

August 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Written advocacy

We are looking, for the second time, at the Court of Appeal decision yesterday in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. That part of the judgment that deals with findings of fact  at trial and appeals against…

DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY:  COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN

DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCES WHEN WITNESSES ARE ABSENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO THE INFERENCES TO BE DRAWN

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

I am grateful to barrister  Luka Krsljanin for sending me a copy of hte Court of Appeal decision today in Manzi -v- King’s College NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1882. The Court rejected an argument that the trial judge…

WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT

WHO SIGNED THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH? THIS COULD BE A VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION: TICKING A BOX IS NOT SUFFICIENT

August 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

I am looking again at the judgment in  Kassam -v- Gill (13th August 2018, County Court at Birmingham available on Lawtel).  Here we look at the crucial question of who signed the statement of truth. A difficult concept when a claim form…

DON'T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT

DON’T DELAY SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM JUST BECAUSE YOU DON’T HAVE THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: A NAIL IN THE COFFIN FOR CLAIMANTS WHO DECIDE TO WAIT

August 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

There is another aspect of the judgment in Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd v Woodward & Anor [2018] EWHC 2152 (Ch) that needs highlighting. The lesson here is clear:  you cannot delay service of the claim form on the grounds that you…

APPEAL ON FINDING OF FACT ALLOWED: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN THE CREDIT HIRE WAR

APPEAL ON FINDING OF FACT ALLOWED: ANOTHER SKIRMISH IN THE CREDIT HIRE WAR

August 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Members Content

I am grateful to Lee Kipling from Winns, solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of HH Judge Gosnell in Morris -v- MCE Insurance Company Ltd.( Morris v MCE Insurance (23.07.18) (Jud) (2)). A case where the judge allowed…

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

CARE EXPERTS, ALLOWED ON APPEAL: NEW EVIDENCE ALSO ALLOWED

August 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Ryan v Resende [2018] EWHC 2145 (QB) Mr Justice Goose allowed the claimant’s appeal and granted permission for it to rely on a care expert.  The judgment shows the importance of having evidence to hand to counter an argument that…

LAWYERS (& OTHERS) - WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN

LAWYERS (& OTHERS) – WHY YOU SHOULD WATCH WHAT YOU SAY IN THE PUB: LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE OUSTED BY INIQUITY OF ADVICE GIVEN

August 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Litigation Privilege,, Members Content

In the judgment today in X v. Y Ltd (PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Disclosure) [2018] UKEAT 0261 Mrs Justice Slade held that an email  marked “Legally Privileged and Confidential” did not have the protection of professional privilege.  The judgment also shows…

RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS

RESPONDENT CAN STILL RAISE ISSUES ON DAMAGES AFTER LIABILITY IS DETERMINED: IMPORTANT POINT ON PROTECTING AN APPLICANT AS TO COSTS

August 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Damages, Default judgment,, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision in Office Equipment Systems Ltd v Hughes [2018] EWCA Civ 1842 is in relation to procedure in the Employment Tribunal.  However there are two points in the judgment that are of general importance to civil practitioners. …

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO "MIXED CLAIMS": THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

FULL QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT EXTEND TO “MIXED CLAIMS”: THE COURT HAS A DISCRETION: JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In  The Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis v Brown [2018] EWHC 2046 (Admin) Mrs Justice Whipple held that a claim against the police for misuse of data, misfeasance in public office and misuse of private information, did not give rise…

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONSTRUCTION OF PART 36: IT IS NOT A PART 36 OFFER JUST BECAUSE THE PARTIES SAY SO: OFFERS CAN ONLY BE ASSESSED BY REFERENCE TO THE PLEADINGS

July 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Hertel & Anor v Saunders & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1831 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that an offer made was not a valid Part 36 offer.  It was held that a Part 36 offer had to be…

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

APPEALS, QOCS AND SET OFF: MORE ON THE DECISION IN CARTWRIGHT -V- VENDUCT: COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWED SET OFF OF APPEAL COSTS

July 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Gary Brankin and Jeremy Rae  of BC Legal for providing more information about the decision in Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654, the court of Appeal decision on QOCS considered yesterday.  This is a point on…

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS "SUCCESSFUL" DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

TOMLIN ORDER PREVENTS “SUCCESSFUL” DEFENDANT RECOVERING COSTS FROM CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES IN A QOCS CASE: BUT CHOOSE YOUR DEFENDANTS CAREFULLY

July 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Risks of litigation

In Cartwright v Venduct Engineering Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1654 the Court of Appeal considered issues relating to the recoverability of costs in multi-defendant cases where the claimant would normally have the protection of qualified one-way costs shifting.   The case provides…

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS "MALICIOUS": PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

PROVING THINGS 117: A DISHONEST POLICE OFFICER IS “MALICIOUS”: PROVING A CASE FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION AND MISFEASANCE IN PUBLIC OFFICE

July 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In the judgment in Rees & Ors v Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2018] EWCA Civ 1587 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding that a police force was not liable for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office because…

"CHANGE IN THE LAW" JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

“CHANGE IN THE LAW” JUSTIFIES EXTENSION OF TIME: DENTON CONSIDERED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the Court of Appeal in QR (Pakistan), R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1413.   The fact that a subsequent judgment of the Supreme…

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

BRIEF FEE NOT TO BE ABATED BECAUSE OF VERY LATE SETTLEMENT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In Hugh Cartwright & Amin v Devoy-Williams & Anor [2018] EWHC 1692 (QB) Mrs Justice Nicola Davies MBE (sitting with an assessor) overturned a decision of a Master where counsel’s brief fee was reduced because the matter had settled the afternoon…

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

ERRORS BY YOUR OWN EXPERT ARE NOT GOING TO LEAD TO A WIN ON APPEAL: A KNOTTY SITUATION

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Damages, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Proportionality

In Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd v Williams & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1514 the Court of Appeal considered a “rather obscure” argument that an error by the appellant’s expert should lead to damages being reconsidered.   “It would be quite wrong…

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS - BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

WHEN YOU THINK THE JUDGE HAS GIVEN INADEQUATE REASONS – BEST ASK THE TRIAL JUDGE BEFORE APPEALING

July 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

In Drury v Rafique & Anor [2018] EWHC 1527 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss gave important guidance to those thinking of appealing a judgment on the basis of inadequate reasons. It is dangerous for an appellant to appeal on this grounds without…

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER'S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER’S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

June 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

Yesterday I gave a short summary of the decision in Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. This is a case worth looking at in detail.   The substantive case settled for £50,000 shortly after issue. The question of…

LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND  DEFENCE RIGHTFULLY REFUSED: LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL ALSO GOT THE BARNSLEY CHOP

LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND DEFENCE RIGHTFULLY REFUSED: LATE APPLICATION TO AMEND NOTICE OF APPEAL ALSO GOT THE BARNSLEY CHOP

June 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Members Content, Statements of Case

In First Tower Trustees Ltd & Anor v CDS (Superstores International) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 1396 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision by the trial judge to refuse a late amendment to the defence.  An application to amend the Notice…

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

CFA IS STILL VALID EVEN IF IT NAMES THE WRONG DEFENDANT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Malone v Birmingham Community NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 1376 the Court of Appeal held that a Conditional Fee Agreement was valid even though it named the wrong defendant.  The judgment contains important observations on how conditional fee agreements should…

ORDER FOR COSTS TO BE ASSESSED DOES NOT OUST FIXED COSTS: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION

ORDER FOR COSTS TO BE ASSESSED DOES NOT OUST FIXED COSTS: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION

June 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe of Taylor-Rose  for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Yelton in Bratek -v-Clark-Drain Limited (County Court at Cambridge 30th April 2018). A copy is available here Bratek v Clark-Drain Ltd…

INSURANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDSTERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

INSURANCE COMPANY ENTITLED TO EXEMPLARY DAMAGES AGAINST FRAUDSTERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

June 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Default judgment,, Members Content

In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Financial Claims Solutions Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1330 the Court of Appeal held that an insurance company was entitled to exemplary damages against parties who had attempted to defraud it. “the present case…

AVOIDING THE TERMS OF A CONSENT ORDER: A CASE THAT HAS A LOT OF LESSONS FOR SOLICITORS: WHY A CONSENT ORDER MAY NOT BE WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON

AVOIDING THE TERMS OF A CONSENT ORDER: A CASE THAT HAS A LOT OF LESSONS FOR SOLICITORS: WHY A CONSENT ORDER MAY NOT BE WORTH THE PAPER ITS WRITTEN ON

June 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The judgment in  Riordan & Ors v Moon Beevor Solicitors (a firm) [2018] EWHC 1452 (QB) gives an interesting insight into the fallout from litigation – where the disgruntled client blames the solicitors.   There are important lessons here about the drafting…

COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO COSTS TO AWARD WHEN CLAIMANTS UNREASONABLY EXIT THE PORTAL: CPR 36.20 IS NOT DECISIVE

COURT HAS A DISCRETION AS TO COSTS TO AWARD WHEN CLAIMANTS UNREASONABLY EXIT THE PORTAL: CPR 36.20 IS NOT DECISIVE

June 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to solicitor Matthew Hoe of Taylor Rose TTKW for sending me a copy of the transcript in Ansell & Evans -v- A.T & T (GB) Holdings Ltd (County Court at Oxford 14/12/2017 HHJ Clarke).  A copy is…

THE DANGER (FOR CLAIMANTS) OF LEAVING PART 36 OFFERS OPEN: CLAIM £125,000, GET £950

THE DANGER (FOR CLAIMANTS) OF LEAVING PART 36 OFFERS OPEN: CLAIM £125,000, GET £950

June 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36

It is worthwhile for every litigator (and insurer) to take a quick read of the report on Hogg -v- Newton (Teeside County Court 18th May 2018) which is reported on DAC Beachroft’s website.*  It shows the importance,  to a claimant…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE NEW EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL WOULD NOT BE MOVED

June 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In The National Guild of Removers & Storers Ltd v Bee Moved Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1302 the Court of Appeal refused the appellant’s application to adduce new evidence.  It is a a case that highlights the difficulties of…

APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS: A WORLD OF THEIR OWN: NOT QUITE CPR 39.(3) - BUT VERY CLOSE

APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE SUMMARY JUDGMENT ORDERS: A WORLD OF THEIR OWN: NOT QUITE CPR 39.(3) – BUT VERY CLOSE

June 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Setting aside judgment, Summary judgment

A party seeking to set aside an order for summary judgment has to deal with principles that are almost unique.  This was emphasised in the judgment of Miss Penelpe Reed QC  in Phonographic Performance Ltd v Balgun (t/a Mama Africa) [2018]…

THIS IS NOT A "PLEADING POINT": WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THIS IS NOT A “PLEADING POINT”: WHY LISTS OF ISSUES NEED TO BE CAREFULLY DRAFTED: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

June 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

In  Scicluna v Zippy Stitch Ltd & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1320 the Court of Appeal reiterated the importance of  the list of issues.  This relates to procedure in the Employment Tribunal however, as the judgment points out, lists of issues…

← Previous 1 … 14 15 16 … 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

  • COST (MEGA) BITES 378: WHO WOULD SPEND £15,751,483 PLUS VAT TO RECOVER DAMAGES OF £16.91? (WELCOME TO THE SURREAL WORLD OF "COLLECTIVE PROCEEDINGS": THE CAT ARE CONCERNED THAT LITIGATION IS BEING BROUGHT FOR THE LAWYERS & FUNDERS RATHER THAN CONSUMERS
  • 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)
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS SERVED LATE: THE COURT GRANTED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS - BUT... : BE WARY OF MISSING THINGS WHEN OTHER THINGS ARE GOING ON...
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 2: NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PD57AC: "HE KNOWS NOT OF WHAT HE SPEAKS"

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.