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 17
A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC

A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT AN OPEN INVITATION TO TAKE A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY: AN OVERUSED TACTIC

March 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Judgment, Members Content

In Gosvenor London Ltd v Aygun Aluminium UK Ltd [2018] EWHC 227 (TCC) Mr Justice Fraser made it clear that draft judgments were not to be taken as an invitation to the parties to embark on a second round of submissions….

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: "JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS"

MISTAKES, APPEALS, DENTON AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: “JUDGES DIFFER, ONE FROM ANOTHER, IN SMALL, HUMAN, WAYS”

March 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Litigants in person, Members Content

In EDF Energy Customers Ltd v Re-Energized Ltd [2018] EWHC 652 (Ch)  HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) carried out a comprehensive review of the authorities relating to the latitude to be afforded to litigants in person. It…

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE:  PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF  CONDUCT AND COSTS

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE: PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONDUCT AND COSTS

March 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 613 illustrates two distinct issues: The position when a judge is unable to make a finding on the evidence. What conduct can lead to a successful…

OVER-LISTING HAS CONSEQUENCES : (SO DOES TALKING OVER YOUR OPPONENT): HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BECOME A "SHOUTING MATCH"

OVER-LISTING HAS CONSEQUENCES : (SO DOES TALKING OVER YOUR OPPONENT): HEARINGS SHOULD NOT BECOME A “SHOUTING MATCH”

March 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There is a page on this blog where I am attempting to collate problems with listing (across all jurisdictions).  The judgment reported today in  A v R & Anor (Appeal of Summary Determination) [2018] EWHC 521 provides a reminder that listing…

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS' APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

CHANGING FROM LEGAL AID TO A CFA: JUDGMENT IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DEFENDANTS’ APPEAL ALLOWED: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES NOT RECOVERABLE

March 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Sean Linley of PIC costings for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgement in Surrey -v- Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWCA Civ 451.  This is the latest in the…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: GET THE FONT SIZE RIGHT, AND THE LENGTH CORRECT: OR IT COULD COST YOU

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Written advocacy

The Administrative Court Clerks Users Group has sent out an email to many chambers in relation to the format of skeleton arguments.  If you did not receive this it is worth reading. THE EMAIL: SIZE AND FONTS OF SKELETON ARGUMENTS…

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: CAN YOU BLAME A REPRESENTATIVE? SHOULD LITIGANTS IN PERSON BE TREATED MORE LENIENTLY?

March 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were considered by the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber in Clarke v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2018] UKFTT 123 (TC). Here we look at two particular parts of the judgment: (i) the relevance of reliance on an…

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME IN FOREIGN JUDGMENTS CASE: JUDGMENT TODAY

March 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

A post in 2015 looked at the decision in In Christofi -v- National Bank of Greece (Cyprus) Ltd [2015] EWHC 986 (QB) Mrs Justice Andrews DBE held that there were very limited grounds for extending time in an appeal against the registration of…

COSTS ON APPEAL - TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

COSTS ON APPEAL – TWO ISSUES: COSTS AWARDED WHERE THERE WAS NO SCHEDULE BELOW: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A PARTY HAD MADE AN OFFER TO COMPROMISE AN APPEAL

March 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

An earlier post dealt with the substantive decision in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017).   A short supplementary judgment dealt with two issues as to costs. KEY POINTS The fact that a party did not have a…

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN?  HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

WHO SHOULD PAY WHAT WHEN A PART 36 OFFER IS WITHDRAWN? HIGH COURT DECISION: COSTS LIABILITY DOES NOT RUN FROM THE DATE OF AN OFFER THAT IS WITHDRAWN

February 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36

In Ballard v Sussex Partnership NHS Foundation Trust [2018] EWHC 370 (QB) Mr Justice Foskett considered the impact of a Part 36 offer that had been withdrawn. He overturned an order that the claimant should pay the costs from the date…

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE WERE PROPERLY GRANTED: APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE ARE A REHEARING NOT A REVIEW: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Another week, another case about service of the claim form. This time the claimant was more successful. In DDM v Al-Zahra (PVT) Hospital & Ors [2018] EWHC 346 (QB). Mr Justice Foskett allowed an appeal against a Master’s decision setting aside…

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

WHEN QOCS APPLY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: THE SWINGS AND THE ROUNDABOUTS

February 26, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

In Corstorphine (An Infant) v Liverpool City Council [2018] EWCA Civ 270 the Court of Appeal considered an important issue in relation to Qualified One Costs Shifting. What order should be made when the claimant has QOCS protection against some of…

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

BARTON -V- WRIGHT HASSALL: JUDGMENT IN THE SUPREME COURT TODAY: A DETAILED BREAKDOWN OF THE MAJORITY JUDGMENT

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It is rare for issues relating to procedure to reach the Supreme Court. The judgment today in Barton -v- Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 concerned the issue of correct service of the claim form.  The claimant lost the appeal (albeit…

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

CLAIM FORMS IN THE SUPREME COURT: SERVICE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: NO SPECIAL RULES FOR A LITIGANT IN PERSON

February 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The Supreme Court dismissed the claimant’s appeal in Barton -v- Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12.  Service by email on a solicitor who had not confirmed they would accept service was not good service. A claimant would not be granted any…

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

LIMITATION PERIOD RUNS FROM DATE OF COMPLETION OF WORK: AGREED TERMS FOR PAYMENT DO NOT EXTEND LIMITATION PERIOD

February 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In  Ice Architects Ltd v Empowering People Inspiring Communities (Rev 1) [2018] EWHC 281 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert found that the six year contractual limitation period ran from the date of completion of work and not the date of invoice.   A…

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PART 36 AND INTERIM PAYMENTS: SOMETHING TO BE WARY ABOUT : COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

The case of Gamal v Synergy Lifestyle Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 210 is one that needs to be read with great care.  A defendant who made a voluntary interim payment after making a Part 36 offer. The effect of this was…

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

SECTION 33 IN AN INDUSTRIAL DEAFNESS CASE: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS NO

February 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

We are looking again at the decision in  Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190     This was the first time the Court of Appeal had considered Section 33 of the Limitation Act since the decision in Carroll v Chief…

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

LIMITATION: DATE OF KNOWLEDGE: IT IS A MATTER OF FACT

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

I used to write a section/chapter on limitation in a legal looseleaf.  The part on “date of knowledge” was, of course, my favourite*.  Section 14 of the Limitation Act 1980 has led to many cases in relation to date of…

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

APPLICATIONS FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE PROPOSED RESPONDENT CAN HAVE THEIR SAY

February 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

An interesting point arose in the Court of Appeal decision today in Carr v Panel Products (Kimpton) Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 190.  When a party seeks permission to appeal from the trial judge – can the other party make submissions in…

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE "DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

OVERTURNING THE SUMMARY ASSESSMENT OF COSTS FOR A COMMITTAL: THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED WERE “DISPROPORTIONATE AND WRONG

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Costs, Members Content

The previous post looked at the Court of Appeal decision today in Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101.   A third element of that judgment was the defendant’s successful appeal against the costs of a committal application.   The Court held…

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

JUDGE WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH AND TO REFUSE TO SET ASIDE SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT

February 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content, Setting aside judgment

In Solanki v Intercity Telecom Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 101 today the Court of Appeal overturned a decision discussed on this blog in 2015.  The Court found that a judge should have granted a defendant an adjournment on ill-health grounds. He…

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT'S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

MOVING THE APPEAL TRIBUNAL FURTHER & FURTHER AWAY FROM THE APPELLANT’S HOME: PROCEDURAL UNFAIRNESS

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content

Earlier this week I paid tribute to Sir Henry Brooke. This included his most recent work dealing with PIPs and ESAs.  He wrote in his blog: “Readers  of these blogs will know I have been telling stories of the injustices…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID II? LAWYERS COME TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: REVIEW YOUR RETAINER CAREFULLY

February 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In Radford & Anor v Frade & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 119 the Court of Appeal upheld the early decisions that lawyers, who worked outside the terms of their retainer under a CFA, could not recover costs from the unsuccessful party….

DENTON APPLIED TO LATE APPEAL: SUBMITTING SUBMISSIONS AFTER A HEARING AND THE NEED FOR CAUTION WHEN SEEKING DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

DENTON APPLIED TO LATE APPEAL: SUBMITTING SUBMISSIONS AFTER A HEARING AND THE NEED FOR CAUTION WHEN SEEKING DAMAGES UNDER THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT

February 2, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Fayad, R (On the Application Of) v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 54 the Court of Appeal applied the Denton principles to a late appeal.  Permission to appeal was refused. Mr Justice Singh had…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED ON APPEAL: WHEN A CLAIMANT DIGS A BIG HOLE FOR THEMSELVES THE COURT SHOULD NOT STRUGGLE TO EXTRACT THEM

January 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  London Organising Committee of the Olympic And Paralympic Games (LOCOG) v Sinfield [2018] EWHC 51 (QB) Mr Justice Julian Knowles overturned a decision whereby a claimant was allowed damages.  The claimant had been fundamentally dishonest in making a claim for…

WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)

WHEN THE PLEADINGS APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN PUT IN THE PAPER BIN AT TRIAL (SHADES OF THE OFFICE)

January 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

The judgment in Premier Paper Group Ltd v Buchanan McPherson Ltd [2018] EWCA Civ 15 contains some interesting observations about the way in which the parties departed from their pleadings.  Although the claim succeeded this case how important it is that…

THE BRIAN MAY COSTS CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE: PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL DID NOT BITE THE DUST

THE BRIAN MAY COSTS CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE: PROPORTIONALITY APPEAL DID NOT BITE THE DUST

January 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

Thanks to the good offices of the ACL the judgment on appeal of May -v- Wavell Group Ltd is now available here.  The claimant’s appeal on the issue of proportionality was allowed. The figure of £35,000 plus vat for costs…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL - THE FULL JUDGMENT

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL – THE FULL JUDGMENT

January 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) at the end of last year.  The full judgment is now available and is attached here 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment A SUMMARY The…

"SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH": FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

“SOMETIMES AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS SPEAKS THE TRUTH”: FACT FINDING AND THE CIVIL COURTS: PRIVY COUNCIL OVERTURN FINDINGS OF FACT

January 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Cleare v The Attorney General & Ors (Bahamas) [2017] UKPC 38 the Privy Council was scathing of the method of fact finding of the trial judge. The judge erred in failing to consider the significance of medical evidence. ” It…

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL:

UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL:

December 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

Exactly a year ago today His Honour Judge Robinson gave judgment in a case relating to under-payment  the Court fees , see Wiseman -v- Martson.  Judge Robinson gave judgment this morning in a case that covered similar ground. He allowed an…

DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION: CHANGE IN VALUE OF THE CLAIM IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA

DEFENDANT GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION: CHANGE IN VALUE OF THE CLAIM IS A RELEVANT CRITERIA

December 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Admissions, Appeals, Members Content

An earlier post looked at the decision in Wood -v- Days Health UK Ltd & Others [2016] WHC 1079 (QB) where a defendant was refused permission to withdraw from an admission.  That decision was overturned by the Court of Appeal in Wood…

SECOND ACTION NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT RESOURCES DOES NOT "TRUMP THE OVERRIDING NEED TO DO JUSTICE"

SECOND ACTION NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT RESOURCES DOES NOT “TRUMP THE OVERRIDING NEED TO DO JUSTICE”

December 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

In Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 3206 (QB) Mr Justice Morris upheld a finding that a second claim brought by the claimant was not an abuse of process.  “…even post-Jackson, ultimately, the importance of the efficient…

NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE "BEYOND" THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC

NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE “BEYOND” THE 11th HOUR NOT ALLOWED: DENTON APPLIED IN THE TCC

December 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In DPM Property Services Ltd v Emerson Crane Hire Ltd [2017] EWHC 3092 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson overturned a decision giving a counterclaiming defendant permission to rely upon an expert report on quantum shortly before trial. The case is an example…

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAs: IT CAN BE DONE

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAs: IT CAN BE DONE

December 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

In  Budana v The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust & Anor [2017] EWCA Civ 1980 the Court of Appeal decided that a CFA can be assigned from one solicitor to another. THE CASE The claimant was injured. She entered into a…

WHEN AN APPEAL MISSES THE POINT: APPELLANT FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE ISSUES ON APPEAL

WHEN AN APPEAL MISSES THE POINT: APPELLANT FAILED TO IDENTIFY THE ISSUES ON APPEAL

December 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

There are some surprising observations in the judgment in The Bar Standards Board (BSB) v Crawford [2017] EWHC 3101 (Admin).  Not the least that the appellant’s documents did not deal with central issues in the appeal. “The grounds of appeal in…

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD: ERRORS OF THE LAWYERS NOT NECESSARILY LAID AT THE DOOR OF A CLAIMANT

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD: ERRORS OF THE LAWYERS NOT NECESSARILY LAID AT THE DOOR OF A CLAIMANT

December 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Limitation, Members Content

In Greater Manchester Police v Carroll [2017] EWCA Civ 1992 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision of the circuit judge allowing the claimant’s application under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.  The case is interesting because it supports the…

PROVING THINGS 75: PROVING CAUSATION ON AN UNDERTAKING TO PAY DAMAGES: THE INJUNCTION THAT COST THE APPLICANT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS: ROUND 2

PROVING THINGS 75: PROVING CAUSATION ON AN UNDERTAKING TO PAY DAMAGES: THE INJUNCTION THAT COST THE APPLICANT TENS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS: ROUND 2

November 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Injunctions, Members Content

We have looked before at the decision in Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation -v- Yuri Privalov & others [2016]. An applicant for a freezing order was found to have obtained the order wrongly. Consequently they were ordered to pay damages that stretched…

APPEALS ON FACTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DAMNED IF THE WITNESSES AGREE: DAMNED IF THEY DON'T

APPEALS ON FACTS AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: DAMNED IF THE WITNESSES AGREE: DAMNED IF THEY DON’T

November 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Shittu v The Home Office [2017] EWCA Civ 1748 contains some interesting observations about attempts to appeal on findings of fact, “judgecraft” and fact-finding generally.   “The case followed the pattern of many…

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS SECTION 33 ORDER IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS SECTION 33 ORDER IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

November 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Limitation, Members Content

In The Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust v De Meza [2017] EWCA Civ 1711 the Court of Appeal overturned an order under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The trial judge found in favour of the claimant. This was held…

WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH? BOUDICCA, POSSESSORY TITLE AND THE JUDGE'S ROLE AS FACT FINDER: "DETERMINED COMPETITORS IN AN IMPLAUSIBILITY CONTEST"

WHO WAS TELLING THE TRUTH? BOUDICCA, POSSESSORY TITLE AND THE JUDGE’S ROLE AS FACT FINDER: “DETERMINED COMPETITORS IN AN IMPLAUSIBILITY CONTEST”

November 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

In McClelland v Elvin & Ors [2017] EWHC 2795 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered an appeal where the trial judge had found against a party claiming adverse possession. There are some interesting observations in relation to Roman Britain, grounds of…

BNM -v- MGN: A DECISION OF LIMITED PROPORTION

BNM -v- MGN: A DECISION OF LIMITED PROPORTION

November 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

The Court of Appeal decision in BNM v MGN Ltd [2017] EWCA Civ 1767 has relatively limited impact. In particular it says little, if anything, about the proportionality itself. THE CASE The Court of Appeal were deciding an appeal following an…

SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENTS:  PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERED

SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT ASSESSMENTS: PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERED

November 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In October last year I wrote how a speaker at the Association of Cost Lawyers Conference predicted a rise in the number of solicitor and own-client assessments. It has to be said that there have been some interesting cases in…

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: AN UNUSUAL ARGUMENT - TO NO AVAIL

APPEALING FINDINGS OF FACT: AN UNUSUAL ARGUMENT – TO NO AVAIL

November 1, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Witness statements

In Bedford County Council v GE (Eritrea) [2017] EWCA Civ 1521 the appellant attempted to argue that the trial judge had erred on the facts.  The arguments were given fairly short shrift. THE CASE After a hearing in the Court of…

IF YOU WANT YOUR COSTS ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN APPEAL OR INTERLOCUTORY HEARING THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK : OTHERWISE YOU'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT

IF YOU WANT YOUR COSTS ASSESSED IMMEDIATELY AFTER AN APPEAL OR INTERLOCUTORY HEARING THEN YOU HAVE TO ASK : OTHERWISE YOU’LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT

October 30, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

 Does a successful litigant on an interlocutory issue have a right to have their costs assessed immediately? That was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in Khaira & Ors v Shergill & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1687 .  This…

ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND THE FINAL BILL: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: CLIENT (PARTIALLY) SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL

ESTIMATES OF COSTS AND THE FINAL BILL: SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS: CLIENT (PARTIALLY) SUCCESSFUL ON APPEAL

October 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In Harrison v Eversheds Llp [2017] EWHC 2594 (QB) Mrs Justice Slade allowed, in party,  a client’s appeal in relation to estimates of costs and final costs.  It is a case that emphasises the importance of giving full information in relation…

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD ON APPEAL:  DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF LIMITATION HEARING

SECTION 33 DISCRETION UPHELD ON APPEAL: DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS OF LIMITATION HEARING

October 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Limitation, Members Content

In Mossa v Wise [2017] EWHC 2608 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip upheld a Master’s decision under Section 33 of the Limitation Act 1980. The Master’s decision that the defendant pay the costs of the issue of limitation was also upheld. THE…

CAPACITY TO LITIGATE : LITIGATION FRIEND CAN PROPERLY CONTINUE WITH ACTION WHERE CLAIMANT  WAS WITHOUT CAPACITY AT BEGINNING OF CASE

CAPACITY TO LITIGATE : LITIGATION FRIEND CAN PROPERLY CONTINUE WITH ACTION WHERE CLAIMANT WAS WITHOUT CAPACITY AT BEGINNING OF CASE

October 12, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I was speaking at the MASS conference yesterday about capacity and litigation. It is always the way of things that an interesting point on an issue comes up the day after a presentation.  An issue on capacity to litigate arose…

PERMISSION TO APPEAL - TWO YEARS OUT OF TIME - SET ASIDE: COURT WAS "MISLED BY SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND NON DISCLOSURES"

PERMISSION TO APPEAL – TWO YEARS OUT OF TIME – SET ASIDE: COURT WAS “MISLED BY SERIOUS MISREPRESENTATIONS AND NON DISCLOSURES”

October 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Kovarska v Otkritie International Investment Management Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1485 the Court of Appeal set aside an extension of time for appealing.  The order had been granted without a hearing. It was held that the Court…

YOU CAN'T APPEAL ON A POINT THAT YOU HAVEN'T PLEADED: DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS GO DOWN THE PAN

YOU CAN’T APPEAL ON A POINT THAT YOU HAVEN’T PLEADED: DEFENDANT’S ARGUMENTS GO DOWN THE PAN

October 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Statements of Case

There are periodic reminders from the court as to how important the statement of case is. This can be seen in the judgment today in  Watt v Dignan & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 1390.   “I do not agree that a…

WHEN A JUDGMENT STARTS "OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR": CAR CRASHES AND MOTORWAY PILE UPS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RENDERED SPEECHLESS

WHEN A JUDGMENT STARTS “OH DEAR, OH DEAR, OH DEAR”: CAR CRASHES AND MOTORWAY PILE UPS IN THE UPPER TRIBUNAL: UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RENDERED SPEECHLESS

September 25, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

This blog sometimes looks at tribunal decisions, primarily in the context of procedural issues.  These issues abound in the decision of Upper Tribunal judge Nicholas Wikeley in AF v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (DLA) (No2) (Tribunal procedure and…

← Previous 1 … 16 17 18 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

  • AN OFFER TO SETTLE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR COSTS MAY WELL BE INEFFECTIVE: IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A PETITION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
  • IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL – MAKE SURE YOU ARE AVAILABLE…: JUDGE SAYS THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THIS ISSUE
  • COST BITES 398: MORE BUDGETING IN THE MERCEDES-BENZ LITIGATION: ONLY A “MODEST” REDUCTION OF £1 MILLION HERE: BUT WHY (THE COURT ASKS) WEREN’T REALISTICALLY REDUCED FIGURES PUT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: “AVOID BULLSHIT, SMOKE AND MIRRORS” (OH AND “WELL PADDED VANITY” (JUNE 2016
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

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.