Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Bundles » Page 3

WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS: COMPLIANCE WITH ORDERS, ABSENT STATEMENTS AND LATE BUNDLES

November 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In F-v-M [2015] EWHC 3259 (Fam) Mr Justice Cobb made a wasted costs order against a firm of solicitors. The judgment is (and was designed to be) an object lesson in the need to comply with court directions and court…

WHAT A DIFFERENCE A PAGE MAKES: COURT WOULD NOT RECONSIDER JUDGMENT BECAUSE TRIAL BUNDLE WAS MISSING A PAGE

September 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Absolute Lofts South West London Limited -v- Artisan Home Improvements [2015] EWHC 2632 (IPEC) the claimant had missed a crucial page from the trial bundle. His Honour Judge Hacon refused an application to reconsider his judgment on damages.  If anything showed…

MORE ON BUNDLES: JACKSON ON THE BUNDLE AS AN OBSTACLE COURSE

July 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Bundles, Members Content

In a judgment today Jackson L.J. made some trenchant remarks about the quality of the appeal bundle. It illustrates the importance of reading (and complying) with the relevant rules and practice directions. “The appeal bundle should be an aid to…

TRIAL BUNDLES, SEDLEY'S LAWS AND DOCUMENTARY CARPET BOMBING

May 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

“Sedley’s Laws” of trial bundles were mentioned by Mr Justice Turner in Griffiths -v- The Secretary of State for Health [2015]. Another example of over-sized trial bundles. “CPR 1.3 imposes a duty upon the parties to help the court to…

YET MORE ON BUNDLES : BREACH OF ORDER MADE ON "MITCHELL" GROUNDS UPHELD ON "DENTON" GROUNDS

May 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Patel -v- Mussa [2015] EWCA Civ 434 is, in essence, another sorry story about bundles.  It is also an example of the Court of Appeal upholding a case management decision made by a judge who applied “Mitchell”…

JUDGES MUST "CONTEND WITH THE CHANGING FASHIONS OF APPELLATE COURTS": ANOTHER LATE WITNESS STATEMENT; ANOTHER CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

April 29, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Civil evidence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

“This is yet another appeal concerning the proper application of CPR 3.9 as to relief from sanctions.” The opening words of the judgment of Mr Justice Cranston in Fouda -v- The Mayor & Burgesses of the London Borough of Southwark…

TROUBLESOME BUNDLES YET AGAIN: MR JUSTICE EDER SPEAKS OUT ON WASTEFUL BUNDLES IN THE COMMERCIAL COURT

March 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The question of bundles was raised by Mr Justice Eder in Taberna Europe -v- Selskabet [2015] EWHC 871 (Comm).  This is hardly a new complaint and appears across the board in all jurisdictions. (There are now 16 posts on this…

PROPORTIONALITY, BUNDLES AND £3 MILLION SPENT ON COSTS: FAMILY COURT ON PROFLIGATE EXPENDITURE

March 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Costs, Members Content

We have looked at the family courts from time to time in relation to procedure, costs and proportionality. Another example is provided by the judgment of Mr Justice Holman in the case of Gray -v- Work [2015] EWHC 834 (Fam)….

WHEN BUNDLES & SANCTIONS COLLIDE: DAVIS -v- RAJA: FAILURE TO FILE APPEAL BUNDLE LEADS TO APPEAL BEING STRUCK OUT

March 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Davis Solicitors LLP -v- Raja [2015] EWHC 519 (QB) Mr Justice Supperstone refused the claimant relief from sanctions following a failure to comply with directions on appeal in relation to the filing of a bundle. There are important practical…

USELESS BUNDLES; LENGTHY SKELETONS AND JUDICIAL IRE: THE COURT OF APPEAL RUES INABILITY TO IMPOSE "OLD FASHIONED" SANCTIONS

USELESS BUNDLES; LENGTHY SKELETONS AND JUDICIAL IRE: THE COURT OF APPEAL RUES INABILITY TO IMPOSE "OLD FASHIONED" SANCTIONS

July 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

This is not the first time CLB has commented on judicial complaints about over-long skeletons and poorly thought out bundles.  These points are made again by the Court of Appeal in Caldero Trading -v- Leibson [2014] EWCA Civ 935. The…

← Previous 1 2 3

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

  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION AN 8 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE (AUGUST 2019): AND LOOK AT THE LINKS…
  • EXPERT WATCH 66: RED FLAGS AND EXPERTS (1) :THE DUTY TO CONSIDER THE RANGE OF OPINIONS: OFTEN “HONOURED IN THE BREACH”; OFTEN FATAL TO A PARTY’S CASE
  • EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY “WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT” TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
  • ANOTHER INTERESTING DISCUSSION (ABOUT INTEREST…): THE STARTING POINT IS THAT THE CLAIMANT IS ENTITLED TO BE COMPENSATED FOR BEING OUT OF ITS MONEY (NO MATTER WHAT IT WOULD HAVE DONE WITH IT…)
  • WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS

Top Posts

EXPERT WATCH 65 : WHEN THE JUDGES SAY "WE ATTACH VERY LITTLE WEIGHT" TO A REPORT IT IS CLEAR THAT SOMETHING HAS GONE WRONG
COST BITES 435: £4 MILLION SPENT IN COSTS AND NEITHER PARTY WILL RECOVER A PENNY FROM THE OTHER: A "PYRHHIC" VICTORY LEADS TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS...
COST BITES 436: THE DEFENDANT FAILED TO BEAT THE CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFER: WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY? THE IMPORTANCE OF INTEREST
A WIDOW CANNOT BRING AN ACTION UNDER THE FATAL ACCIDENTS ACT WHERE HER HUSBAND SETTLED THE PERSONAL INJURY ACTION AGAINST A CONCURRENT TORTFEASOR IN HIS LIFETIME
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS

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.