Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Brexit
BREXIT, APPLICATIONS AND THE LEGAL LABYRINTH: A CASE TO POINT

BREXIT, APPLICATIONS AND THE LEGAL LABYRINTH: A CASE TO POINT

July 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Brexit, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The legal problems caused by Brexit raised their head in the judgment of Master Clark in Shanavazi, Re [2021] EWHC 1832 (Ch).   “It will be apparent from this judgment that a relatively simple practical problem has given rise to…

THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT:  HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH "ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK"

THE USE OF EXPERT WITNESSES TO CONSTRUE EUROPEAN DIRECTIVES AFTER BREXIT: HOW THE COURT WORKS WITH “ONE OR BOTH HANDS TIED BEHIND ITS BACK”

June 16, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Brexit, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Greenaway v Parrish & Ors [2021] EWHC 1506 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer considered the “nightmare position” the courts are now in as a result of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 in relation to interpreting European Directives.   This…

CONSTRUING REGULATIONS AFTER BREXIT: COURT OF APPEAL GUIDANCE: THE CASE OF THE ABSENT PILOT

CONSTRUING REGULATIONS AFTER BREXIT: COURT OF APPEAL GUIDANCE: THE CASE OF THE ABSENT PILOT

March 30, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Brexit, Members Content

I am grateful to my colleague Michael Rawlinson QC for sending me a copy of the Court of Appeal judgment in Lipton -v- BA City Flyer Limited [2021] EWCA Civ 454. The judgment of Lord Justice Green contains a comprehensive…

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE:  EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

BREXIT AND CIVIL PROCEDURE: EXPERTS ARE NOT BE CROSS EXAMINED ON FORESEEABILITY OF UK LEAVING THE EU

January 14, 2019 · by gexall · in Brexit, Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

This is a far less exciting case than the headline suggests, however it is the first  case I have seen about the impact of Brexit on civil procedure (albeit indirectly). In Canary Wharf (Bp4) T1 Ltd & Ors v European Medicines…

BREXIT: THE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES: USEFUL LINKS

June 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Brexit, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

The vote to leave the EU has legal consequences across a wide range of practice areas. Here I aim to provide links to useful posts and articles that discuss those issues. This post is updated regularly. THE INDIVIDUAL SECTIONS There…

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

  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 72: THE COURT WOULD NOT ALLOW THE CLAIMANTS A “FALL BACK” POSITION OF A SECOND HEARING: “A TRIAL IS THE FIRST AND LAST NIGHT OF THE SHOW; IT IS NOT A DRESS REHEARSAL”
  • THE COURT HAS NO POWER TO EXTEND TIME FOR ISSUE WHEN A SOLICITOR WISHES TO CHALLENGE A SRA INTERVENTION (AND WHY IT IS ADVISABLE TO PUT ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION ON THE CLAIM FORM…)
  • EXPERT WATCH 47: AN EXPERT CANNOT OMIT MATTERS FROM THEIR REPORT ON THE BASIS THAT THEY COULD EXPLAIN THEM WHEN QUESTIONED: “THIS BELIED A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE OBLIGATIONS UPON A CPR COMPLIANT REPORT”
  • COST BITES 387: THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT THERE MUST BE A DETAILED ASSESSMENT WHERE A CASE LASTS MORE THAN ONE DAY: JUDGE SUMMARILY ASSESSES COSTS AFTER A THREE DAY HEARING
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE RIGHT OF A DEFENDANT TO ASK FOR A CLAIM FORM TO BE SERVED: CPR 7.7 CONSIDERED

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.