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 » Back to Basics » Page 2
CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 39: A NOTICE TO ADMIT FACTS: THE RULES AND CASE LAW

April 25, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure

In a discussion about the 20th anniversary of the Civil Procedure Rules on Twitter today someone asked if “Notices to Admit Facts” were still available, they had not seen one for a long time. The rules still permit parties to…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 38: THE DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM

April 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Statements of Case, Striking out

The previous post was about the “reply”. The rules relating to a Defence to Counterclaim are different. Very importantly the timing of the defence to counterclaim is different.  There is an obligation on a claimant to properly and fully plead…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING "LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING"

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36A: UNDERSTANDING “LITIGATION WISHFUL THINKING”

April 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

In assessing a case, and the evidence of both sides, litigators have to be aware of the process of  “litigation wishful thinking”.  Witnesses may be perfectly honest, but their memories as to what happened are influenced by what they wish would have…

CIVIL PROCEDURE  BACK TO BASICS 36  : WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROPOSED DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 36 : WHAT TO DO WHEN A PROPOSED DEFENDANT HAS DIED AND THERE IS NO GRANT OF PROBATE

April 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure

 A search term that arrived on this blog earlier today asked “how to you sue a dead person?”  The basic answer is that you can’t. You have to sue their executors or administrators.  The problem arises when probate has not…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 35: WITNESS CREDIBILITY: MORE THAN MEMORY OR HONESTY

April 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

The question of witness credibility is often the central issue of most cases that get to trial. Surprisingly it is a matter that barely features in legal education. A knowledge of the factors that a judge will take into account…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 24: THE BANKRUPT CLAIMANT (PERSONAL INJURY LITIGANTS IN PARTICULAR)

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 24: THE BANKRUPT CLAIMANT (PERSONAL INJURY LITIGANTS IN PARTICULAR)

January 20, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Personal Injury

I am writing this primarily because of a conversation I had with a law graduate who thought the term “bankruptcy” was a generic term to cover anyone who was hard up. The very basic point about what bankruptcy is, and…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 22: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ADOPTS ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 22: WHEN THE CLAIMANT ADOPTS ALLEGATIONS OF CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: HOIST ON YOUR OWN PETARD

January 6, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Statements of Case

This post follows on from the previous post in relation to pleading the Defendant’s case in the alternative.  Here we are looking at cases where a defendant pleads allegations of negligence and the claimant uses  those allegations as allegations against the…

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

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

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

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

BACK TO BASICS 14: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR

BACK TO BASICS 14: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR

December 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In the case I wrote about yesterday, Higgins & Ors v TLT LLP [2017] EWHC 3868 (Ch), the very basic errors made by the claimant’s solicitor in relation to service of the claim form were held to amount to “misconduct” (albeit in…

BACK TO BASICS 19: COSTS BUDGETING WHEN CASE IS MORE THAN £25,000 BUT LESS THAN £50,000

BACK TO BASICS 19: COSTS BUDGETING WHEN CASE IS MORE THAN £25,000 BUT LESS THAN £50,000

December 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Costs, Costs budgeting

There are special rules governing budgets in cases where the claimant claims more than £25,000 but less than £50,000.  Firstly the budget has to be filed much earlier. Secondly the budget “must” only be the first page of Precedent H….

BACK TO BASICS 17: WHEN SHOULD A COST BUDGET BE FILED: WHERE THINGS GO WRONG

BACK TO BASICS 17: WHEN SHOULD A COST BUDGET BE FILED: WHERE THINGS GO WRONG

December 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting

This may appear very basic. However I have seen both sides falling foul of this very recently. In particular the fact that the budget has to be filed with the directions questionnaire when the claim is limited to £50,000. THE…

BACK TO BASICS 16: COSTS BUDGETING: THE GUIDANCE NOTES ON PRECEDENT H

BACK TO BASICS 16: COSTS BUDGETING: THE GUIDANCE NOTES ON PRECEDENT H

September 18, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting

There is much written about the process of costs budgeting.  There is much to be said, when preparing for a hearing – and often at the hearing itself, looking at the Practice Direction and Guidance Notes. THE PRACTICE DIRECTION The…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 13: WHAT IS MEANT BY WITNESS "CREDIBILITY"? WHY THIS IS OFTEN CENTRAL TO A LITIGATOR'S WORK

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 13: WHAT IS MEANT BY WITNESS “CREDIBILITY”? WHY THIS IS OFTEN CENTRAL TO A LITIGATOR’S WORK

September 4, 2018 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

Many  civil cases  turn on  witness credibility, yet very little training and education is given to lawyers about assessing credibility.  Every litigator has to be able to make an assessment of this  when taking a case on; before issuing proceedings…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL

August 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Admissions, Civil Procedure, Statements of Case

Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything.  Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”.  Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…

CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS "SIMPLY INCREDIBLE"

CIVIL PROCEDURE:BACK TO BASICS 9: THE COURT NOT ENTITLED TO REJECT WRITTEN EVIDENCE UNLESS IT IS “SIMPLY INCREDIBLE”

July 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Witness statements

There is a short passage in Wards Solicitors v Hendawi [2018] EWHC 1907 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a judge of the High Court), that serves as a reminder of a basic principle in interlocutory proceedings – a court will not…

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY

CIVIL PROCEDURE: BACK TO BASICS 8: LEAVING VENOM OUT OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: A PEN DIPPED IN VITRIOL IS GOING TO COST YOU MONEY

May 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Witness statements

It is surprising how many witness statements I have read (both in practice and in the reports) that contain invective material.  Litigants appear to think it important, and effective, that they disparage their opponents.  Litigants should be warned that this…

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 6: NON-DISCLOSURE OF A PART 36 OFFER

April 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36

This post is caused by some comments on Twitter this evening. A surprising number of cases where parties have, by one method or other, disclosed a Part 36 offer. This has been done by including the offers in the trial…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 5: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES: NOT A NUMBER-CRUNCHING EXERCISE

April 16, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Damages, Schedules, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

If there is anything that suffers from being taken for granted it is the basic schedule and counter-schedule. This is demonstrated in the judgment available today in Wright v Satellite Information Services Ltd [2018] EWHC 812 (QB) Mrs Justice Yip. The appeal…

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 4: WHAT NOT TO PUT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: "INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT OPINION, SUBMISSION, SPECULATION AND INNUENDO"

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 4: WHAT NOT TO PUT IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: “INADMISSIBLE AND IRRELEVANT OPINION, SUBMISSION, SPECULATION AND INNUENDO”

April 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Witness statements

This is a very basic point. A witness statement should consist of evidence.  That principle is often breached in interlocutory applications, as we have seen.  However when a lawyer does this, or allows it to happen, in a witness statement…

CIVIL PROCEDURE - BACK TO BASICS 3: THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH

CIVIL PROCEDURE – BACK TO BASICS 3: THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH

April 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Useful links, Witness statements

The aim of this series is to look at things that litigators do every day – almost automatically. Signing a statement of truth is one of those things.  This is a regular occurrence in many solicitor’s offices.  It is a…

← Previous 1 2 3 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2022. 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 26,333 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER 2: THERE WAS NO MISCONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANTS, HOWEVER THE COSTS OF ARGUING ABOUT CONDUCT WERE NOT ALLOWED
  • COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO DEFENDANT’S BREACH ARE RECOVERABLE: THEY WERE “INCIDENTAL” TO THE APPLICATION
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: A WORKING EXAMPLE: THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: HOURS, SUPERVISION AND THE USE OF COUNSEL
  • THE REDUCTION OF A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT’S COSTS BECAUSE OF CONDUCT: RELEVANT CALDERBANK OFFERS CONSIDERED: RECOVERABLE COSTS REDUCED BY 15% AND 60%
  • SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT GOOD SERVICE: A CLAIMANT NEEDS A SPECIFIC STATEMENT THAT SERVICE WILL BE ACCEPTED: APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME REFUSED

Top Posts & Pages

  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER: A WORKING EXAMPLE: THE DETAILED ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: HOURS, SUPERVISION AND THE USE OF COUNSEL
  • COSTS INCURRED PRIOR TO DEFENDANT'S BREACH ARE RECOVERABLE: THEY WERE "INCIDENTAL" TO THE APPLICATION
  • THE REDUCTION OF A SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT'S COSTS BECAUSE OF CONDUCT: RELEVANT CALDERBANK OFFERS CONSIDERED: RECOVERABLE COSTS REDUCED BY 15% AND 60%
  • THE COSTS JUDGE OVER YOUR SHOULDER 2: THERE WAS NO MISCONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANTS, HOWEVER THE COSTS OF ARGUING ABOUT CONDUCT WERE NOT ALLOWED
  • SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS NOT GOOD SERVICE: A CLAIMANT NEEDS A SPECIFIC STATEMENT THAT SERVICE WILL BE ACCEPTED: APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME REFUSED

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 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • 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 © 2022 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin