Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Applications
PARTS OF A SOLICITORS' WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER - A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE

PARTS OF A SOLICITORS’ WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER – A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE

May 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Witness statements

There are countless posts on this blog where judges have criticised the contents of witness statements.  Here we are looking at a case where the judge struck out parts of a witness statement signed by a solicitor.  Parts of the…

THE JUDGE'S DECISION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS TO A DEFENDANT WAS APPROPRIATE: SOME WORDS AS TO HOW PEREMPTORY ORDERS SHOULD BE DRAFTED.

THE JUDGE’S DECISION TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS TO A DEFENDANT WAS APPROPRIATE: SOME WORDS AS TO HOW PEREMPTORY ORDERS SHOULD BE DRAFTED.

May 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

Today we are looking at a case where the Court of Appeal upheld a decision granting a defendant relief from sanctions.  However this is a case of “two halves” in that the claimant had a more favourable decision in relation…

PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 2: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION, EVIDENCE  AND FAILURE TO WEAR A CYCLE HELMET (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO)

PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 2: CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE, CAUSATION, EVIDENCE AND FAILURE TO WEAR A CYCLE HELMET (SOMETHING ABOUT PLEADINGS TOO)

May 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Personal Injury, Webinar

In the previous post in this series I mentioned that there was a backlog. I didn’t anticipate that I would be looking at a case that was decided in 2009.  However the judgment has recently arrived on BAILLI and it…

THIRD PARTY HAD FUNDED THE LITIGATION AND WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS : A "CHILDISH AND INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPT" TO DECEIVE THE COURT DID NOT PASS MUSTER

THIRD PARTY HAD FUNDED THE LITIGATION AND WAS LIABLE TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS : A “CHILDISH AND INEFFECTUAL ATTEMPT” TO DECEIVE THE COURT DID NOT PASS MUSTER

May 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Costs

It is a well known principle that a third party funder can be liable to pay the costs of an action.  However what happens when the funding agreement is dressed up as something else – a car sale for instance? …

COST BITES 237: "THROUGHOUT HISTORY, LAWYERS HAVE HAD A BAD REPUTATION": COMMONSENSE AND PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERED IN THE FAMILY COURTS

COST BITES 237: “THROUGHOUT HISTORY, LAWYERS HAVE HAD A BAD REPUTATION”: COMMONSENSE AND PROPORTIONALITY CONSIDERED IN THE FAMILY COURTS

May 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Proportionality

Why spend £13,000 to recover a remedy that will only be worth £1,500? That is the issue considered by Deputy District Judge Hodgson [Professor David Hodson OBE KC (Hons)].  An application was made late. The gain to the applicant was…

WHEN CASES RELIED UPON IN  WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WERE SIMPLY "FALSE": WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS

WHEN CASES RELIED UPON IN WRITTEN ARGUMENTS WERE SIMPLY “FALSE”: WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS

May 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Wasted Costs

This blog celebrates its 12th anniversary next month. Civil Litigation Brief started as a column in the Solicitors Journal 35 years ago. Over that time many people have helpfully sent me and pointed me me to cases of interest. In…

COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT SOLICITORS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: THE ONGOING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM PROMPTLY

COURT REFUSES DEFENDANT SOLICITORS APPLICATION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT: THE ONGOING CONSEQUENCES OF FAILING TO SERVE A CLAIM FORM PROMPTLY

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Service of the claim form, Summary judgment

The case we are looking at today involves the consequences, for the solicitors, of failing to serve a claim form. In an earlier case extensions of time for service of a claim form were set aside.   The client instructed new…

DOES AN  ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM REQUIRED RE-SEALING AND FILING PRIOR TO SERVICE? AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONSIDERED

DOES AN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED AND SUBSEQUENTLY AMENDED CLAIM FORM REQUIRED RE-SEALING AND FILING PRIOR TO SERVICE? AN IMPORTANT ISSUE CONSIDERED

May 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Service of the claim form

If a claimant serves a “amended” claim form that has not been resealed does that amount to good service? That issue was considered in the case we are considering today.  The result is of considerable practical significance. However it pays…

CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SECURITY FOR COSTS: APPLICATION BY A THIRD PARTY WAS NOT A "NEW CLAIM"

CLAIMANT NOT ENTITLED TO SECURITY FOR COSTS: APPLICATION BY A THIRD PARTY WAS NOT A “NEW CLAIM”

May 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Uncategorized

Normally only a defendant can apply for security for costs.  In this case the claimant applied for security for costs when a third party made an application.  The question for the court was – in these circumstances can the applicant…

NEW EDITION OF THE KINGS BENCH GUIDE: THE GENERAL CHANGES AND THE GUIDANCE ON ANONYMITY ORDERS

NEW EDITION OF THE KINGS BENCH GUIDE: THE GENERAL CHANGES AND THE GUIDANCE ON ANONYMITY ORDERS

May 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure

There is a new edition of the King’s Bench Guide.  There are some additions and changes.  In particular the Guide notes the difference between an application for an anonymity order made at an approval hearing and one that is not….

ANOTHER CASE OF SOMEONE BREACHING THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: THE DRAFT SHOULD NOT BE HANDED OVER THE THE LAWYER'S MARKETING DEPARTMENT

ANOTHER CASE OF SOMEONE BREACHING THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: THE DRAFT SHOULD NOT BE HANDED OVER THE THE LAWYER’S MARKETING DEPARTMENT

April 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct

It is difficult to believe that  cases about  lawyers accidently breaching a judgment embargo still happen.  However the reports keep coming.  Prominent firms of solicitors, and barristers’ chambers have, over the years fallen foul of the rules. In particular a…

JUDGE STRIKES OUT CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: IT IS "INCOHERENT" AND OBSTRUCTS THE JUST DISPOSAL OF THE CLAIM

JUDGE STRIKES OUT CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: IT IS “INCOHERENT” AND OBSTRUCTS THE JUST DISPOSAL OF THE CLAIM

April 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Clinical Negligence, Damages, Schedules, Summary judgment

It is an easy matter for a claimant to insert a claim for a substantial loss of earnings into a schedule of damages.  However a claimant then has to prove that loss. Further, even prior to trial, a defendant is…

DEFENDANT GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE : "I AM IN NO DOUBT THAT I SHOULD GRANT THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF OF ONE DAY..."

DEFENDANT GRANTED AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE : “I AM IN NO DOUBT THAT I SHOULD GRANT THE RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION OF OF ONE DAY…”

April 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

In Ahmad v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks [2025] EWHC 936 (Pat) Mr Justice Mellor granted the defendant an extension of one day to file a defence, this had the effect of making the defendant’s applications to strike…

COST BITES 232: COSTS JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A "SHORT CUT" TO APPROVAL OF SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS FROM A PROTECTED PARTY'S DAMAGES

COST BITES 232: COSTS JUDGE REJECTS ARGUMENT THAT THERE SHOULD BE A “SHORT CUT” TO APPROVAL OF SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS FROM A PROTECTED PARTY’S DAMAGES

April 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Personal Injury

A solicitor who wishes to deduct “solicitor and own client” costs in a case involving a minor or protected party requires approval by the Court.  Here we have a case where the claimant’s solicitors argued, robustly, that the current process…

COST BITES 230:  CLIENT UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF BILLS RENDERED MORE THAN 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO ISSUE: CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS GO NOWHERE...

COST BITES 230: CLIENT UNSUCCESSFUL IN APPLICATION FOR ASSESSMENT OF BILLS RENDERED MORE THAN 12 MONTHS PRIOR TO ISSUE: CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS GO NOWHERE…

April 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs

There are numerous cases on this blog where solicitor defendants have encountered major problems, and often come to grief, when faced with applications by clients for solicitor and own client assessments.  The judgment of  Costs Judge Whalan in Mehta v…

ADDING AN ADDITIONAL PARTY TO A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE TEST IS THAT OF DESIRABILITY RATHER THAN NECESSITY

ADDING AN ADDITIONAL PARTY TO A PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AFTER THE EXPIRY OF THE LIMITATION PERIOD: THE TEST IS THAT OF DESIRABILITY RATHER THAN NECESSITY

April 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Limitation, Personal Injury

In Doroudvash v Zurich Insurance PLC [2025] EWCC 10 HHJ Holmes identified a route whereby the claimant  in a personal injury case could join an additional defendant into an action after the expiry of the initial limitation period.  This construction…

APPELLANT FILED APPEAL WITH TWO MINUTES TO SPARE: HOWEVER IT WAS FILED IMPROPERLY AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED: THE DANGERS OF HYPERLINKS...

APPELLANT FILED APPEAL WITH TWO MINUTES TO SPARE: HOWEVER IT WAS FILED IMPROPERLY AND THE APPEAL DISMISSED: THE DANGERS OF HYPERLINKS…

April 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time

The judgment of Mr Justice Dexter Dias in  Kumar v The General Medical Council (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 820 (Admin) contains an important lesson for all litigants. An appellant left filing a notice of appeal until two minutes before the expiry…

£1 MILLION CASE AUTOMATICALLY STRUCK OUT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A "ROGUE SOLICITOR" WAS NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF REINSTATEMENT

£1 MILLION CASE AUTOMATICALLY STRUCK OUT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: THE FACT THAT THIS WAS A “ROGUE SOLICITOR” WAS NOT A STRONG ARGUMENT IN FAVOUR OF REINSTATEMENT

April 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of HHJ Hassall in  Mr Martyn Ian Haynes v Total Plant Hire Limited is available as a link on an article in the Law Society Gazette, available here.  The case involves a detailed consideration of the Denton criteria. In particular some of the arguments on…

COST BITES 228 : DEFENDANT SOLICITOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CLAIMANT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS SEEKING A STATUTE BILL

COST BITES 228 : DEFENDANT SOLICITOR TO PAY THE COSTS OF THE CLAIMANT ISSUING PROCEEDINGS SEEKING A STATUTE BILL

April 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs

In Franklin v Your Lawyers Ltd [2025] EWHC 984 (SCCO) Acting Senior Costs Judge Rowley dismissed a defendant solicitor’s argument that it should recover its costs after its former client had issued proceedings seeking the delivery of a statute bill. …

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL (AGAIN): DELAYS REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION - NOT A CHRONOLOGY

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL (AGAIN): DELAYS REQUIRE AN EXPLANATION – NOT A CHRONOLOGY

April 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of HHJ Karen Walden-Smith in Khan & Anor v Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government & Anor [2025] EWHC 969 (Admin) is the second example this week of the court considering the Denton principles when…

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL: A "NUANCED APPROACH" IS REQUIRED

THE DENTON PRINCIPLES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME TO APPEAL: A “NUANCED APPROACH” IS REQUIRED

April 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

In Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General [2025] EWCA Civ 476 the Court of Appeal considered the Denton principles in the context of extending time for permission to appeal.   The case emphasises that the absence of a good reason for default…

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: TEN KEY POINTS CONSIDERED: ACT PROMPLY, ACT PROPERLY AND DON'T TELL LIES

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: TEN KEY POINTS CONSIDERED: ACT PROMPLY, ACT PROPERLY AND DON’T TELL LIES

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct

Legal Futures carries a report of a paralegal banned from the profession because she tried to cover up a mistake by lying to the court.  This gives me a reason to reiterate points made regularly on this blog about what…

"ARGUMENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS":  GUIDANCE ON WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT

“ARGUMENT SHOULD BE LEFT TO THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS”: GUIDANCE ON WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT REPORT

April 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Witness statements

The Commercial Court report for 2023 – 2024 shows that there have been some changes to the Commercial Court Guide. The  Guide has removed the requirement to obtain permission for a witness statement to exceed 30 pages.  It is hoped…

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE "EXPERT EVIDENCE" FROM THE CLAIMANT'S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE...

APPLICATION TO ADDUCE “EXPERT EVIDENCE” FROM THE CLAIMANT’S SON WAS REFUSED: THIS IS NOT AN EXPERT REPORT, IT IS NOT COMPLIANT, NOT IMPARTIAL AND NOT ADMISSIBLE…

April 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Witness statements

We are returning to the judgment of Jason Beer KC Rajan Marwaha v Director of Border Revenue & Anor [2025] EWHC 869 (KB) Jason Beer KC and staying with the issue of “expert” evidence. This time looking at the attempt of…

"THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK": COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN

“THE DOG ATE MY HOMEWORK”: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHEN COSTS BUDGET WAS SERVED LATE: NOT DUE TO LATENESS BUT BECAUSE OF THE INADEQUATE BUDGET AND EXPLANATIONS GIVEN

April 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting

In Stephen Herbert Hunt v Oceania Capital Reserves Limited & Ors [2025] EWHC 837 (Ch) Master Brightwell refused the second and third defendants application for relief from sanctions in a case where the costs budget was served late.  However it…

SPORTING INJURIES IN THE COURTS: WEBINAR 17TH APRIL 2025: SOME INTERESTING TOPICS TO TACKLE...

SPORTING INJURIES IN THE COURTS: WEBINAR 17TH APRIL 2025: SOME INTERESTING TOPICS TO TACKLE…

April 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Damages, Personal Injury, Webinar

Injuries to those involved in sports are not unusual.  The issues relating to whether injuries are the result of negligence are complex ones. This webinar looks at the law relating to sporting injuries and, importantly, at the practical issues that…

PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE "RELEVANT PERIOD": THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT

PART 36 OFFER WAS VALID DESPITE THE FAILURE TO SPECIFY THE “RELEVANT PERIOD”: THE HISTORY OF OFFERS IS IMPORTANT

April 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36

Important issues relating to the construction of Part 36 were considered in detail by Mr Justice Calver in Henderson & Jones Ltd v Salica Investments Ltd & Ors [2025] EWHC 838 (Comm). The claimant’s failure to specify the “relevant period”…

DEFENDANT'S POINT ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM NOT ACCEPTED: THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS

DEFENDANT’S POINT ON NON-SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM NOT ACCEPTED: THE CLAIMANT HAD TAKEN ALL REASONABLE STEPS

April 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

The judgment of Fordham J in  Baz v General Dental Council [2025] EWHC 643 (Admin) contained an interesting issue in relation to service of the claim form.   The defendant conceded that the claim form had been properly placed in the…

COST BITES 224 :  SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT'S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT'S COSTS DESCRIBED AS "INCREDIBLE)"

COST BITES 224 : SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: COSTS JUDGE DISMISSES CLAIMANT’S PART 8 ACTION BECAUSE THERE WERE PART 7 PROCEEDINGS PENDING: (DEFENDANT’S COSTS DESCRIBED AS “INCREDIBLE)”

April 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs

In Captivatiun Ltd v Orr Litchfield Solicitors Ltd [2025] EWHC 679 (SCCO)  Costs Judge Nagalingam dismissed a client’s application for an assessment of costs under Part 8.  The application was made out of time and there were ongoing Part 7…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XVI: THE FUTILITY OF TRYING TO READ THE JUDGE’S BODY LANGUAGE

March 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Civil evidence

Many of the posts in this series revisit previous series on the judge’s view. This post looks at the recent case of Russell v Coulter (Rev1) [2025] EWHC 493 (KB). The judge made certain observations when disallowing the evidence of a…

NOW HERE'S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS' APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT - WHO HAD CAPACITY

NOW HERE’S AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION: COURT REFUSES DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION TO APPROVE A SETTLEMENT REACHED WITH A CLAIMANT – WHO HAD CAPACITY

March 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

In David Forsyth v Craig Howson & Anor [2025] EWHC 653 (KB)  HHJ Claire Evans (sitting as Judge of the High Court) refused an unusual application by the defendants.  The claimant had capacity to litigate and yet the defendants sought an order…

THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER

THE COURT WOULD NOT ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL: FUZZY LINES, COSTS, PREJUDICE AND OTHER FACTORS MEAN ALL ISSUES SHOULD BE HEARD TOGETHER

March 19, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Professional negligence,

In Tatiana Soroka v Payne Hicks Beach (A Firm) [2025] EWHC 602 (Ch) Master Kaye refused the claimant’s application for a split trial.  The judgment considers in detail the guidance from the authorities and the matters the court should take into account….

"A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY": WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL

“A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY”: WHEN DOES TIME FOR APPEALING START TO RUN WHEN A JUDGMENT IS SENT OUT? CLARITY IS ESSENTIAL

March 18, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Extensions of time

The judgment of Mr Justice Hayden in  F (A Minor) (Permission To Appeal) [2025] EWHC 638 (Fam) highlights a trap for those seeking permission to appeal.  The time for appealing runs from the date that the order was announced and…

COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)

COST BITES 223: HOW MUCH DOES AN UNSUCCESSFUL APPLICATION TO ADDUCE EXPERT EVIDENCE COST? £111,616 (APPROXIMATELY): (OH, AND PLUS YOUR OWN COSTS)

March 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Summary assessment,

I sometimes have to remind people (and remind myself) that one of the aims of this series is to keep an eye on costs awards that are actually made at hearings at trial.  This provides an insight into what is…

ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

ANOTHER BREACH OF THE EMBARGO ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT: REMEMBER THIS IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

March 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct

In John Sisk and Son Ltd v Capital & Centric (Rose) Ltd [2025] EWHC 594 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that a party had breached the rules relating to the embargo on a draft…

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

AGENCY FEES AND MEDICAL REPORTS: JUDGE REFUSES TO ALLOW AGENCY PROFIT ELEMENT OF THE FEE: ANOTHER ROUND IN A CONTINUING BATTLE

March 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts

I am grateful to Howard Dean of Keoghs, solicitors,  for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Morris in Smith -v- Portsmouth Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, a copy of which is available here.   It is a case…

COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY...)

COURT WAS CORRECT TO REFUSE TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WHO WAS IN DEFAULT (OH, AND THE PROCEEDINGS HAD NEVER BEEN SERVED PROPERLY ANYWAY…)

March 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Lumsden v Charles [2025] EWCC 7 HHJ Peter Marquand refused a claimant’s application for relief from sanctions. The claimant had issued Part 8 proceedings but failed to serve the witness evidence and particulars with the proceedings by the rules. …

HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

HMCTS GUIDANCE ON HOW TO ISSUE AND MANAGE A MONEY CLAIM ONLINE: GUIDE FOR LEGAL PROFESSIONALS

March 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Useful links

HM Courts and Tribunal Services have published two documents to help legal professionals issue and manage an online money claim.   THE DOCUMENTS 1. Issue and online money claim as a legal professional 2. Manage and online money claim as…

COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT'S COSTS

COST BITES 221: A FAILURE TO AGREE TO MEDIATE DID NOT LEAD TO A REDUCTION IN A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S COSTS

March 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR

In Assensus Ltd v Wirsol Energy Ltd (Re Consequential Matters) [2025] EWHC 503 (KB) Mr Justice Constable rejected the claimant’s argument that the successful defendant’s refusal to attend mediation should lead to a reduction in the defendant’s costs.  The case…

THIS SKELETON ARGUMENT IS FAR TOO LONG, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES - AND ISN'T GOING TO BE ADMITTED

THIS SKELETON ARGUMENT IS FAR TOO LONG, DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES – AND ISN’T GOING TO BE ADMITTED

March 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Written advocacy

In  Henderson & Jones Ltd & Ors v Grange Heating Services Ltd & Ors (COSTS) [2024] EWHC 3572 (TCC) Adrian Williamson KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused to admit a “skeleton” argument that was too long and did…

COST BITES 220: QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO CO-CLAIMANTS WHO DO NOT BRING A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN A CASE IS STRUCK OUT

COST BITES 220: QOCS PROTECTION DOES NOT APPLY TO CO-CLAIMANTS WHO DO NOT BRING A CLAIM FOR PERSONAL INJURY: NOR DOES IT APPLY WHEN A CASE IS STRUCK OUT

March 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Personal Injury, QOCS

In BB & Ors v Khayyat & Ors [2025] EWHC 443 (KB) Mr Justice Soole rejected an argument that claimants who had not brought an action for personal injury could have the benefit of QOCS protection.  The fact that they…

THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN CARDIFF; HEARD IN THE COUNTY COURT AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SPLIT TRIAL: HIGH COURT ISSUES A WARNING

THIS CASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN CARDIFF; HEARD IN THE COUNTY COURT AND THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN A SPLIT TRIAL: HIGH COURT ISSUES A WARNING

March 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

We are returning to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in Boyd v Hughes [2025] EWHC 435 (KB).  At the conclusion of the judgment there is a very clear warning that this case: (i) should not have been issued in the…

A QUICK POST ABOUT BUNDLES: THIS WAS "ALMOST UNUSABLE": "THE INDEX MUST IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED"

A QUICK POST ABOUT BUNDLES: THIS WAS “ALMOST UNUSABLE”: “THE INDEX MUST IDENTIFY THE DOCUMENTS CONTAINED”

February 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles

There is an interesting postscript to the judgment of Judge Anthony Snelson in the case of  Soor v Luton Borough Council [2025] UKFTT 259 (GRC). It relates to bundles… … the bundle produced by the Council (over 600 pages long)…

THE DUTY OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT WITHOUT NOTICE HEARINGS: FREEZING ORDER TURNED INTO SLUSH...

THE DUTY OF FAIR PRESENTATION AT WITHOUT NOTICE HEARINGS: FREEZING ORDER TURNED INTO SLUSH…

February 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure

 In J&J Snack Foods Corporation & Anor v Ralph Peters & Sons Limited & Anor [2025] EWHC 436 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt set aside an injunction that had been obtained without notice. The case is an object lesson in the need…

COST BITES 219:  DISBURSEMENTS: WHAT IS A REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONAL INTERPRETER'S FEE? THE COURT MUST "HAVE REGARD TO THE MARKET"

COST BITES 219: DISBURSEMENTS: WHAT IS A REASONABLE AND PROPORTIONAL INTERPRETER’S FEE? THE COURT MUST “HAVE REGARD TO THE MARKET”

February 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs

In  Santiago v Motor Insurers’ Bureau  ( The County Court at Central London, 22nd February 2025,available here Santiago v MIB Final)*  HHJ Dight CBE considered the issue of what was a reasonable and proportional interpreter’s fee.  The case had been…

INTERIM PAYMENTS WHERE ONLY 50% OF DAMAGES ARE LIKELY TO BE RECOVERED: IS A HEAD OF FUTURE LOSS LIKELY TO BE CAPITALISED?

INTERIM PAYMENTS WHERE ONLY 50% OF DAMAGES ARE LIKELY TO BE RECOVERED: IS A HEAD OF FUTURE LOSS LIKELY TO BE CAPITALISED?

February 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Interim Payments

In Lexi-Rae Speirs v St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 337 (KB) Senior Master Cook considered the question of how the court should approach an application for an interim payment in a case where the claimant was only…

APPLICATIONS FOR ANONYMITY ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN: COURT OF APPEAL ADJOURNS HEARING - BUT WHERE ARE WE NOW?

APPLICATIONS FOR ANONYMITY ORDERS IN CIVIL CASES INVOLVING CHILDREN: COURT OF APPEAL ADJOURNS HEARING – BUT WHERE ARE WE NOW?

February 25, 2025 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Applications

In PMC (a child) v A Local Health Board [2025] EWCA Civ 176 the Court of Appeal adjourned a hearing relating to anonymity orders in civil cases involving children, pending a Supreme Court decision.  Some important guidance was given as…

DOES A PROPOSED NEW DEFENDANT HAVE TO BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION TO JOIN THEM INTO THE ACTION? TWO CONTRASTING VIEWS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

DOES A PROPOSED NEW DEFENDANT HAVE TO BE GIVEN NOTICE OF THE APPLICATION TO JOIN THEM INTO THE ACTION? TWO CONTRASTING VIEWS FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL

February 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure

In Noel Anthony Clarke v Guardian News & Media Ltd [2025] EWCA Civ 164 the Court of Appeal considered (but did not determine) the question of whether it was mandatory to give notice of the application to join a new defendant to…

A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FOR EVIDENCE AND NOT SUBMISSIONS (SOMETHING THIS BLOG HAS OBSERVED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST...)

A WITNESS STATEMENT IS FOR EVIDENCE AND NOT SUBMISSIONS (SOMETHING THIS BLOG HAS OBSERVED MANY TIMES IN THE PAST…)

February 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Witness statements

We are returning to the judgment of Senior Master Cook in  Lexi-Rae Speirs v St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 337 (KB).  The Master observed that the witness evidence served in support of the claimant’s application went…

A PARTY CAN'T REALLY OBJECT THAT EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE IS SERVED LATE: WHEN THIS INVOLVES THE RESPONSE BEING SERVED BEFORE THE EVIDNCE IS RECEIVED...

A PARTY CAN’T REALLY OBJECT THAT EVIDENCE IN RESPONSE IS SERVED LATE: WHEN THIS INVOLVES THE RESPONSE BEING SERVED BEFORE THE EVIDNCE IS RECEIVED…

February 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Interim Payments

In  Lexi-Rae Speirs v St Georges University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2025] EWHC 337 (KB) Senior Master Cook considered an argument that the defendant’s evidence should not be admitted because it was served late.  The fundamental problem with the claimant’s submission…

1 2 … 14 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2024. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 35.1K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 10: THE DUTIES ON A PARTY PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DECEIT
  • PARTS OF A SOLICITORS’ WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER – A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 3: A SOLICITOR INJURED AT WORK FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY: A DOOR IS NOT WORK EQUIPMENT
  • ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE OF FAKE AUTHORITIES BEING CITED TO THE COURT: APPEAL STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • THE DEFENDANT’S DELAY LEADS TO COURT OF APPEAL REFUSING TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PROMPT

Top Posts & Pages

  • ANOTHER (YES ANOTHER) CASE OF FAKE AUTHORITIES BEING CITED TO THE COURT: APPEAL STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • PERSONAL INJURY POINTS 3: A SOLICITOR INJURED AT WORK FAILS TO ESTABLISH LIABILITY: A DOOR IS NOT WORK EQUIPMENT
  • PARTS OF A SOLICITORS' WITNESS STATEMENT ARE STRUCK OUT: A REMINDER - A WITNESS STATEMENT IS A PLACE FOR FACTS, NOT OPINION, LEGAL ARGUMENTS OR ATTEMPTS TO GIVE EXPERT EVIDENCE: IT IS REALLY THAT SIMPLE
  • THE DEFENDANT'S DELAY LEADS TO COURT OF APPEAL REFUSING TO SET ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING PROMPT
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 10: THE DUTIES ON A PARTY PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DECEIT

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...