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 26

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…

WITNESS STATEMENTS CANNOT BE RELIED ON AT TRIAL IF SERVED LATE AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GIVEN

June 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

Lawtel today reported the case of Davies -v- Liberty Place [2014] EWHC 2034 (Admin). In that case Leggatt J stated that a party who served a witness statement late was not automatically precluded from relying on that statement at trial….

PRO BONO COSTS ORDERS: THE SECTION, GUIDES AND LINKS

June 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am grateful to Nick Hanning for pointing out one aspect of the judgement in the recent  Paratus case   that he, rightly, says would benefit from wider publicity.  The Court made a Pro Bono Costs order under section 194…

GIVING EVIDENCE CAN BE A GRIZZLY BUSINESS: HOW DO THE COURTS ASSESS WHOSE ACCOUNT IS CORRECT?

GIVING EVIDENCE CAN BE A GRIZZLY BUSINESS: HOW DO THE COURTS ASSESS WHOSE ACCOUNT IS CORRECT?

June 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Witness statements

In Grizzly Business Ltd -v- Stena Drilling Ltd [2014] EWHC 1920 (Comm) a judge had to decide between two competing versions of what was said in a telephone call three years earlier in a case when $2.5 million was at…

NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AFTER APPELLANT FAILED TO FILE TRANSCRIPTS ON TIME.

June 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  Patterson -v- Spencer [2014] EWHC 1878 (Ch) Henry Carr QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an appellant’s application for relief from sanctions after she failed to file transcripts of the initial hearing. THE FACTS One of the defendants,…

ANOTHER CASE WHERE PARTY REFUSED RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENT

June 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The case of Swinden -v- Grima (Nicol J) 18/06/2014 is briefly reported on Lawtel (20th June). It is another example of the court refusing permission to serve witness statements late. THE FACTS The defendant served a witness statement on the…

MORE ABOUT SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND CPR 3.9: NEWLAND -v- TOBA CONSIDERED

June 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The question of whether CPR 3.9 and the Mitchell criteria apply to applications to have judgment set aside is an issue that has been considered several times on this blog. In a decision yesterday Newland -v- Trading FZC (& other)…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING LATE FAILURE TO SERVE WITNESS STATEMENT: ONE OUT OF THREE MAY NOT BE ENOUGH

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

In Cranford Community College -v- Cranford College Ltd (16/06/2014 IPEC Judge Hacon) the court granted relief from sanctions following late service of a witness statement. (The case was reported on Lawtel on the 18th June 2014). THE FACTS The action…

WELL WHAT SHOULD THE TEST FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BE? YOUR CHANCE TO COMMENT

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

“Is there not a more imaginative way to encourage parties to co-operate? Looking at some of the circumstances litigation had been utterly derailed due to satellite litigation.  This is inappropriate in 99% of cases. We need a message saying that…

LEEDS LAW SOCIETY MEET THE JUDGES EVENT: JACKSON ONE YEAR (AND A FEW MONTHS) ON

LEEDS LAW SOCIETY MEET THE JUDGES EVENT: JACKSON ONE YEAR (AND A FEW MONTHS) ON

June 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out, Uncategorized

Yesterday evening Leeds Law Society held a “meet the judges” evening when practitioners met local judges and court staff to discuss issues arising out of the implementation of the Jackson reforms.   Some of the issues were specific to Leeds but most…

COURT OF APPEAL SANCTIONS HEARING: SUBMISSIONS IN UTILISE -V- DAVIES

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

The final tranche of the notes taking at the hearing of the sanctions cases yesterday. The case of Utilise -v- Davies.  Discussion of the first instance decision  can be found in this blog as can a link to the transcript….

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING FAILURE TO FILE FUNDING INFORMATION AT START OF COSTS ASSESSMENT: MERCANTILE COURT DECISION

June 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Warner -v- Merrett (QBD Merc 12/6/2014) Judge Mackie QC granted relief from sanctions following a failure to serve documents relating to serve documents relating to additional liabilities at the outset of a detailed costs assessment. The case was briefly…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS SUMMARY: HIGH COURT CASE CONSIDERED

June 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

Whilst the Court of Appeal ruminates over the problems caused by Mitchell life goes on at the procedural coalface. Attached to this post is a decision of Mr. N. Strauss Q.C. sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge on the…

SANCTIONS CASE TODAY: SUBMISSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS FROM THE LAW SOCIETY AND BAR COUNCIL

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

The Bar Council and the Law Society were invited to make submissions at the sanctions hearings in the Court of Appeal today. The discussions between the Bar and the Bench make fascinating reading. (Mr Holland QC for both the Bar…

SANCTIONS HEARING TODAY: NOTES OF THE HEARING IN DECADENT VAPOURS

June 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

DECADENT VAPOURS LIMITED V BEVAN Heard by the Court of Appeal on 16th June 2014  (Lord Justice Dyson MR) (Lord Justice Jackson) (Lord Justice Vos)  APPELLANT/CLAIMANT’S SUBMISSION  In the present case the appellant appeals a decision to refuse relief from…

COURT OF APPEAL HEARING TODAY: DETAILED NOTE OF SUBMISSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AT THE COURT

June 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Court of Appeal hearing on sanctions after Mitchell goes on.   Here I outline, in detail, the submissions and discussions in Denton.  Other cases will follow. DENTON AND OTHERS V T H WHITE LIMITED  Heard by the Court of…

SANCTIONS CASES: SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS THIS MORNING

June 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here is a very brief summary of the arguments considered by the Court of Appeal in the cases on sanctions this morning.   A useful summary is also being provided by @JohnHyde1982 on twitter. Lord Justices Jackson, Dyson and Voss are…

PORTAL ISSUES: WHAT HAPPENS IF THE DEFENDANT DOESN'T PAY THE COSTS?

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

It is clear that a new jurisprudence is developing around behaviour in, or around, the portal. A previous post looked at how the court will construe procedural issues arising out of the portal.  I am grateful to Tom Melville of…

COSTS DRAFTSMAN SIGNING COSTS BUDGET DOES NOT RENDER IT A NULLITY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY CONSIDERED

June 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents, Uncategorized

There may be no end to the Mitchell points being taken. In a case earlier today, Americhem Europe Ltd -v- Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) e Mr Justice Stuart-Smith considered an argument that the costs budget signed by  a…

← Previous 1 … 25 26 27 … 30 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

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.