Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Civil Procedure Rules » Page 25

ADDUCING A SECOND EXPERT WITNESS LATE IN THE DAY: THWAYTES -v- SOTHEBYS CONSIDERED

September 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

There is a brief report on Lawtel today of a decision of Rose J in Thwaytes -v- Sothebys (16/09/2014) where permission was given for the defendant to rely on an additional expert and the application was heard six weeks before…

CHANGES TO CHANCERY PROCEDURE FROM 1st OCTOBER

September 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

Master Marsh has put out two Practice Notes which deal with changes in Chancery Procedure from the 1st October 2014. The first deals with lodging of documents electronically and in hard copy.  Documents will not be able to be filed…

INTERIM COSTS ORDERS: USEFUL GUIDES AND LINKS

September 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

I was asked to speak at the Inaugural meeting of the Yorkshire Branch of the Association of Cost Lawyers recently. One matter that came up in discussion was how rarely applications were made for interim applications for costs.  This can…

CAN YOU GET AN ORDER FOR QOCS TO APPLY ON AN APPEAL? CPR 59.2A CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

September 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

In JE -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 192 the Court of Appeal considered whether a QUOCs type order could be made in the Court of Appeal.  The Court also emphasised the importance of prompt…

LIMITATION IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT CLAIM: DATE OF ACCRUAL; LATENT DAMAGE AND AMENDING UNDER CPR 17.4.(2): A CASE IN POINT

September 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Interface Europe Ltd -v- Premier Hanks Dyers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2610 (QB) Judge Saffman (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the issue of the relevant date of accrual of a cause of action in a breach…

SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM TWO DANGEROUS POINTS TO WATCH

September 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Useful links

Most of the cases and commentary in relation to service concentrate upon late service of the claim form.  However it is possible to fall foul of the rules and serve the particulars of claim late even when the claim form…

E-BUNDLE PRACTICE DIRECTION FROM BIRMINGHAM MERCANTILE COURT: THE SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME

September 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

I posted yesterday on the new procedure for e-bundles in the House of Lords and Privy Council. HH Simon Brown QC has sent me a cop of the e-court direction that applies in the Birmingham Mercantile Court. It probably reflects…

COSTS AFTER VARIATION OF A PART 36 OFFER TO BE LESS ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE RECIPIENT: BURRETT -v- MENCAP CONSIDERED

September 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36, Personal Injury

The decision of District Judge Ackroyd in Burreett -v- Mencap Ltd (14th May 2014) was reported on Lawtel earlier this week and is available on Bailli. It contains an important lesson to both defendants and claimants as to costs when…

A WORKING EXAMPLE OF THE DANGERS OF NOT TAKING A FULL WITNESS STATEMENT: DISASTER CAN STRIKE

August 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The decision of Judge Keyser Q.C. In Kellie & Kellie -v- Wheatley & Lloyd Architects Ltd [2014] EWHC 2866(TCC)  gives a working example of the dangers of not taking a full witness statement and exploring issues of importance with a…

PROTOCOL FOR THE INSTRUCTION OF EXPERTS: THE NEW BITS

August 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content

There has been much coverage of the forthcoming changes to the guidance for the instruction of experts in civil claims.  There have been several additions which impose specific duties upon solicitors.  SOLICITOR MUST MAKE POSITION CLEAR IF FURTHER DOCUMENTS ARE…

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COMPLYING WITH THE RULES: WHY WITNESS STATEMENTS CAN COME TO GRIEF

August 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The case of Kaupthing Singer & Friedlander Ltd (in administration) v. UBS AG [2014] EWHC 2450 (Comm) contains yet another example of the very real dangers of using a witness statement to argue a case.  It is usually unhelpful and often…

ANOTHER RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CASE – ANOTHER CONSERVATIVE MP: RELIEF GRANTED AFTER FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF FUNDING

August 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Relief from sanctions was granted to the claimant in Ye0 MP -v- Times Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 2853 (QB). THE ACTION This was a defamation action where the claimant had failed to file notice of funding with the Particulars of…

THE PROCESS OF TAKING WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FROM ACROSS THE BORDER

August 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

There is relatively little guidance to litigators on the process of taking witness statements. What are appropriate questions and, to what extent, can the witness be “guided” by the lawyer.  These are difficult and sensitive topics which have been considered…

FAILURE TO SERVE NOTICE OF AMENDED CFA DETAILS IS NOT A SERIOUS OR SIGNIFICANT BREACH: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The High Court decision in Ultimate Products Ltd -v- Wooley [2014] EWHC 2706 (Ch) provides further guidance as to what the courts are likely to consider “serious or significant” breaches. The High Court judge upheld the decision of the Master…

THE MITCHELL CASE RUMBLES ON: MORE PROCEDURAL ISSUES: SPLIT TRIAL ORDERED

August 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I feel almost duty bound to continue to report on the Mitchell case, even if now has limited relevance to the question of sanctions. The latest case management decision offers an interesting decision on whether there should be a split…

DENTON PRINCIPLES AND EXTENDING TIME FOR APPEALING: COURT OF APPEAL OBSERVATIONS

August 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The issue of whether the “Denton” principles applied to applications for permission to appeal out of time were considered briefly by the Court of Appeal in Hart -v- Burbridge [2014] EWCA Civ 992 THE ISSUES The appellants appealed out of…

FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH AN ORDER FOR E-DISCLOSURE: DECISION THAT A PARTY HAD COMPLIED OVERTURNED IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Striking out

The first instance decision in  Smailes -v- McNally (Re Atrium Training Service) [2013] EWHC 2882 (Ch) was looked at in detail in a previous post in October last year.  It is worth noting that the Court of Appeal have overturned the…

PROPORTIONATE PENALTY FOR BREACH OF DISCLOSURE OBLIGATIONS: THE AMERICAN APPROACH: MAKE A VIDEO

August 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

One of the comments in Denton was that a “strict” construction of Mitchell led to disproportionate results.  A judgment reported this week in Above the Law provides an example of how a judge can attempt to remedy continuous defaults. THE ISSUE:…

DENTON APPLIED: A (VERY) BRIEF REPORT

July 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton principles were mentioned, in passing, in the judgment of HHJ Moloney QC In NNN -v- DI [2014] EWHC B14 (QB). The defendant had been in default in serving a list of documents on the claimant.   A peremptory…

QUOCS IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: FOUR IMPORTANT ISSUES: WAGENAAR CONSIDERED

July 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The decision of the Court of Appeal in Wagenaar -v- Weekend Travel Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1105 was reported today. It contains important observations  and decisions on qualified one way costs shifting, something that is likely to become a major…

PRINCIPLES OF MITIGATION OF LOSS & THE CREDIBILITY OF EXPERT WITNESSES: A HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

July 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Liability, Members Content

The case of Hirtenstein -v- Hill Dickinson LLP [2014]  EWHC 2711 (Comm) where judgment was given today contains many interesting lessons for those involved in professional negligence litigation in particular.   Here I just want to concentrate upon two: (i)…

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS: "4 GOLDEN RULES" DIRECTLY FROM THE JUDGES WHO HEAR THE CASES

July 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

 I have recommended before that litigators read the guidance for litigants in person. It provides useful insights for most litigators and covers most aspects of civil procedure. It is written by six Circuit Judges so it can be safely assumed…

LITIGATION AFTER JACKSON (POST DENTON EDITION): 12 POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE

July 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Part 36, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Useful links, Witness statements

In August last year I wrote Litigation after Jackson a  10 point Survival Guide.  All of the points made in that post remain valid. I have added another 2 to deal with the situation post -Denton. The biggest danger, post…

WHAT CAN THE DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES AFTER A DEFAULT JUDGMENT 2: A CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE

July 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content

We have looked before at the question of what a defendant can argue in relation to damages after a judgment has been entered. A case reported today examines this issue in relation to judgment in a clinical negligence action. SYMES -V-…

POST DENTON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPEAL IN THE HIGH COURT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: "UNREASONABLE" DEFENDANT ORDERED TO PAY COSTS

July 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

I am grateful to Ashley Pratt of St James Chambers for his note of the decision of Mr Justice King in Johnson -v- Bourne Leisure on the 21st July 2014. King J granted relief from sanctions and allowed an appeal from the…

CLAIM FORMS: DECLARATION THAT STEPS TAKEN CONSTITUTE GOOD SERVICE: NEW HIGH COURT CASE CONSIDERED

July 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

There is a brief report on Lawtel of the decision in Tanweer T/A the Auto Service Centre -v- UK Insurance  & National Insurance & Guarantee Corp (Judge Mackie QC) QBD Merc 18/07/2014.  The case is briefly reported and I hope…

THERE ARE DANGERS IF YOU ARE LEAVING THE ISSUE OF COSTS TO THE JUDGE: IN ANY EVENT BE QUICK AND BE CHEAP!

July 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation

There are limited number of cases where the parties can agree everything except who should pay the costs.  There are dangers in leaving the question of costs to the judge, as the case of  Spiller -v- Derhalli [2014] 2548 (EWHC)…

WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS FOR FREEZING ORDERS: THE DANGERS ABOUND: GREENWICH CASES CONTAINS SOME TIMELY LESSONS

July 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Witness statements, Written advocacy

I have written before of the dangers involved in making without notice applications, particularly for freezing orders (“nuclear weapons that can blow up in  your face”).  There is an extremely high duty on the applicant to disclose all relevant matters…

CASE MANAGEMENT AFTER DENTON: DIRECTIONS AND COURT ORDERS SHOULD BE "REALISTIC AND ACHIEVABLE"

July 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

Most of the articles about the Denton case focus upon the relief from sanctions and “clarification” of the principles in Mitchell.  However the Court of Appeal made it clear that part of the focus of case management should be to…

DENTON: THE DISSENTING JUDGMENT OF JACKSON L.J. CONSIDERED

July 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the hundreds of articles, blogs and commentaries on the decision in Denton the “dissenting” judgment is barely mentioned or considered.  Whilst all three members of the court were in agreement that each of the appeals should be allowed there…

WHAT IS MEANT BY "SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT"? THE COURT CONCENTRATES MUCH MORE UPON THE EFFECT OF THE BREACH RATHER THAN THE BREACH ITSELF

July 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Denton -v- White;  [2014] EWCA Civ 906. the Court of Appeal eschewed the use of the word “trivial” where a court is considering an application for relief from sanctions.  Instead the Court stated that the focus should be on whether…

AMENDING PLEADINGS: HAS THE LIMITATION PERIOD EXPIRED? WHERE DOES THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIE?

July 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case

The Court of Appeal decision today in Mercer -v- Ballinger [2014] EWCA Civ 996 may appear to be an issue of esoteric civil procedure.  However the decision is an important one with far-ranging  practical consequences for a party seeking to…

MITCHELL NOT EXTENDED TO ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: AN ISSUE FOR ANOTHER DAY

July 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In R (Abbas Mohammadi -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 2251 (Admin)the court did not decide the issue of whether “Mitchell” principles applied to applications for judicial review. THE FACTS The applicant was seeking judicial review of…

CIVIL PROCEDURE – HOW IT SHOULD BE DONE: A DESCRIPTION OF HOW THE ASBESTOS COURT WORKS

July 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content

Anyone want to see a description of a civil procedure system running smoothly then read Master McCloud’s description of the “asbestos disease court” in her judgment in Yates -v- Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2014] EWCH 2311 (QB)….

BUNDLES, APPEALS AND THE ART OF ADVOCACY: ARE POOR BUNDLES LETTING DOWN YOUR CASE?

July 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

The recent post on Caldero Trading -v- Leibson [2014] EWCA Civ 935 included the Court of Appeal’s criticism of the voluminous bundles prepared in that case.  The trial bundle is often neglected as a tool for advocacy. THIS DOES MEAN THAT A…

MORE ABOUT APPEALING MITCHELL DECISIONS OUT OF TIME: RELEVANT CASE LAW

July 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

A post yesterday considered the possibility of appealing, out of time, the unjust orders that may have been made following Mitchell and the subsequent “clarification” in Denton.  There is some law on this topic, ironically it is a result of…

PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" & A "DENIAL" EXPLORED

July 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

The decision of Mr Justice Bean in Dil -v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 2184 (QB)  relates to a police force’s obligations in relation to the disclosure of details of undercover operations and informers.  However it also deals…

ANATOMY OF A POST-DENTON APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS 3: THE "THIRD STAGE": EVERYTHING IS IN THE MIX

July 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Having considered whether the breach is serious or significant and the reason for the breach a judge hearing a relief from sanctions application may have to go on to the “third stage”. Here the court considers all aspects of the…

ANATOMY OF A POST-DENTON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION 1: THE DEATH OF THE WORD "TRIVIAL"

July 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are now plenty of places that summarise and give views on the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Denton -v- White.  Here I want to start on the task of looking, in some detail, at the practical…

COURT OF APPEAL SANCTIONS HEARING: 70 KEY POINTS OF THE JUDGMENT

July 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The 70 key points of the Court of Appeal judgment in Denton -v- White [2014] EWCA Civ 906. “We hope that what follows will avoid the need in future to resort to the earlier authorities.” (Paragraph 24). CRITICISM OF MITCHELL 1. The…

SANCTIONS HEARING 6: USEFUL LINKS AND WATCH THE JUDGMENT

July 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions

These are links to commentary and comment on the Court of Appeal decision in Denton -v- White [2014] EWCA Civ 906. 1.  The Law Society Gazette reviews the decision (and also allows you to see the judgment being given).(Also a…

SANCTIONS HEARING 4: DOES DECADENT VAPOURS LEAVE A PLEASANT SMELL?

July 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The second substantive decision was Decadent  Vapours.  Here the Court of Appeal overturned a refusal to grant relief from sanctions and the claimant’s case was allowed to proceed. THE FACTS The claimant failed to make payments of fees by the…

SANCTIONS JUDGMENT: THE KEY POINTS (1): STAGES 1 AND 2 OF CONSIDERATIONS IN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS

July 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The history and arguments in relation to the Court of Appeal hearings on sanctions have been fully recorded on this blog. In the judgment given today there are a number of Key points. MITCHELL HAS BEEN THE SUBJECT OF CRITICISM…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE IMPORTANCE OF SERVING AT THE RIGHT PLACE AND THE RIGHT TIME: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF

July 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

This is the third case on service of the claim form reported on this blog in two days, which may be significant. The strict rules on service pre-dated Jackson/Mitchell by over a decade and yet practitioners regularly come to grief. …

“NO CREDIT TO OUR CIVIL JUSTICE SYSTEM” WHAT CONSTITUTES TAKING STEPS TO BRING THE CLAIM FORM TO THE ATTENTION OF THE DEFENDANT?

July 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

“This depressing litigation reflects no credit on our civil justice system. It is yet another example of wasteful satellite litigation unconcerned with the merits of the underlying claim. The Claimant alone escapes censure” Tomlinson L J in Power v Meloy…

DATE SET FOR JUDGMENTS ON COURT OF APPEAL SANCTIONS HEARINGS

July 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Judgment in the three recent cases where the Court of Appeal reviewed the application of the Mitchell criteria is to be given in in  Court 71 in the Royal Courts of Justice on  Friday 4th July at 2pm. TO SEE THE ARGUMENTS…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM CAN BE A PROBLEM FOR DEFENDANTS TOO: ACT PROMPTLY OR YOU HAVE ACCEPTED JURISDICTION

July 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Issues relating to service of the claim form are always problematic for claimants . They can, however, be problematic for defendants as well.  . This is demonstrated by the decision of Eder J in Nwoko –v- Oyo State of Nigeria…

PRECEDENT H: PULLING IT ALL TOGETHER: LINKS TO THE USEFUL POSTS ON COSTS BUDGETING

July 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There are now nearly 400 posts on this blog and some patterns are emerging. Some posts are read in the immediate aftermath of posting,  some keep on being read. Posts about Precedent H are part of those  keep on being…

NO SPECIFIC FORM OF WRITTEN NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO WITHDRAW A PART 36 OFFER: THE ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES OF LEAVING A PART 36 OFFER OPEN

June 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

Part 36 offers are relatively easy to withdraw. This is demonstrated by the decision of Flaux J in of Supergroup Plc v JustEnough Software Corp Inc  where he rejected an application for a declaration that the the claimant had validly…

ALLOCATION BETWEEN THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK AND THE FAST TRACK: WHAT IS MEANT BY "ANY AMOUNT NOT IN DISPUTE"?

June 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content

In the case of Akhtar -v- Boland [2014] EWCA Civ 872 the Court of Appeal gave guidance on CPR 26 and the matters to be considered when a determination is made as to allocation between the Fast Track and the…

← Previous 1 … 24 25 26 … 29 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

  • DEEPFAKES AND THE LAWYER: SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS AND LINKS: “VERIFICATION SHOULD OCCUR BEFORE EVIDENCE IS DEPLOYED, NOT AFTER AUTHENTICITY IS CHALLENGED…”
  • “DEEPFAKE” EVIDENCE POSSIBLY COMING TO A COURT NEAR YOU SOON: LESSONS FROM AMERICA…
  • WHEN A LOCAL AUTHORITY REQUIRES RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: “IT IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC BODY FILES ITS PAPERS IN A TIMELY FASHION AND CO-OPERATES WITH THE CLAIMANT”
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 82: THERE MAY BE A POTENTIALLY VIABLE CLAIM HERE BUT YOU HAVEN’T PLEADED IT: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURN A DECISION TO GRANT PERMISSION TO AMEND COUNTERCLAIM
  • THE NEW SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 5: GOOD PRACTICE SUGGESTIONS

Top Posts

DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHO IS GIVEN THE TASK OF TRYING COMPLEX TRIALS: COURT OF APPEAL MISSIVE TO DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES (& MANY OTHERS...)
NEW COURT FEES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 13th JULY 2026: SOME BRAND NEW PROVISIONS AND THE INFLATIONARY INCREASES: THE CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS, THE MAGISTRATES' COURT, THE LANDS CHAMBER (AND MANY OTHERS)
COST BITES 403: JUDGMENT TODAY: SUCCESS FEE AND ATE PREMIUM NOT PAYABLE BY CLIENT WHEN THE SOLICITOR FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ENQUIRIES ABOUT BTE INSURANCE
A NEW SERIES OF USEFUL ONLINE CALCULATORS FOR LITIGATORS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (WITH A 20% DISCOUNT FOR CLB READERS): MAKING IT ALL ADD UP
PROVING THINGS 291: WHAT WEIGHT DOES A JUDGE GIVE TO WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESSES DO NOT ATTEND TRIAL AND (THE JUDGE FINDS) THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR THIS?

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