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

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: DENTON MADE NO DIFFERENCE

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Blemain Finance Ltd -v- Mukhtar &  Osman (28/10/14)* Globe J upheld a decision of the first instance judge refusing relief from sanctions. THE FACTS The claimant sought possession of the defendants’ home following a failure to pay. There was…

CASE NOT STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO FILE TRIAL BUNDLE & PAY COURT FEES

November 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the most read posts on this blog was, in the middle of the Mitchell Madness period, when a judge struck out an action because the trial bundle had been lodged late.  This issue was considered by Hickinbottom J…

COSTS, OFFERS AND ESTATES: A CASE IN POINT

October 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There is an interesting discussion as to costs in the judgment of HH Judge Hodge QC in Goenka -v- Goenka [2014] EWHC 2966 (Ch). This also shows the difficulty in dealing with costs issues at the end of a long…

RESPONDING TO A COMMITTAL APPLICATION: A POINT TO WATCH

October 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

The brief report in Lawtel of Royal & Sun Alliance -v- Fahad (QBD Spencer J 17/10/14) brings home an important procedural point in relation to committal applications. THE FACTS The applicant was seeking to commit the respondent for making false…

HEARINGS IN PRIVATE AND REPORTING RESTRICTIONS: THE GENERAL RULE IS THAT HEARINGS SHOULD BE IN PUBLIC

October 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In a short judgment today  in V -v- T [2014] EWHC 3432 (Ch)Civ Mr Justice Morgan reviewed the law relating to hearings in private and weighed this up against the protection given by reporting restrictions. It contains an important observation…

SOLICITORS RETAINER WAS UNLAWFUL & NO COSTS PAYABLE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION CONSIDERED

October 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

In the  judgment given today Rees -v- Gateley Wareing [2014] EWCA Civ 1351 the Court of Appeal held that a retainer between the solicitor and client was unlawful, overturning the first instance decision on the matter.   Consequently the solicitors could…

IRRELEVANT EVIDENCE, INFERENCES AND "FORGERY": EVIDENTIAL ISSUES IN A HIGH COURT CASE

October 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The decision of Mr Justice Norris in Redstone Mortgages Ltd -v- B Legal Ltd [2014]EWHC 3390 (Ch) deals with several important issues relating to evidence in civil cases. In particular the relevance and admissibility of “quasi expert” evidence and the…

PLEAD A DEFENCE PROPERLY OR BE STRUCK OUT: A HIGH COURT CASE CONSIDERED

October 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

The case of De Vere Holding Company -v- Belgravia Wealth Management KFT & Ors [2014] (QBD Judge Parkes QC) 15/10/14 was briefly reported on Lawtel today. It contains important observations on the role of pleadings. (This post is based on…

WHY A SOLICITOR SHOULD NOT MAKE STATEMENTS ON CONTENTIOUS MATTERS

October 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

When is it appropriate for a solicitor to swear an affidavit or make a statement in place of the client? This issue was considered by Stanley Burnton J in Bracken Partners -v- Gutteridge [2001] EWHC 568 (Ch) THE CASE The…

LIES, EVIDENCE, DISCLOSURE AND PROCEDURE : AA -v- LONDON BOROUGH OF SOUTHWARK CONSIDERED

October 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Liability, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

It is certain that the decision in AA -v- London Borough of Southwark [2014] EWHC 500 QB will receive considerable coverage. It is a remarkable case. There are enormous implications for local authorities. Here we look at the procedural issues in…

THE DUTIES OWED TO THE COURT ON A WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATION: A VERY HIGH STANDARD

October 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In Standard Bank -v- Just Oil LLC [2014] EWHC 2687 (Comm) the Hon Mr Justice Walker considered the duties owed when a party makes an without notice application to the court.  Strong words are said. THE FACTS The claimant had…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, VERY LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS AND DOCUMENTS: A DECISION TODAY

October 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Witness statements

The judgment of the Hon Mrs Justice Asplin DBE given today in Lictor Anstalt -v- MIR Steel UK Ltd [2014] EWHC 3316 (Ch) contained a consideration of the Denton criteria in relation to late service of witness evidence and documents….

INTEREST AND COSTS WHEN A CLAIMANT BEATS THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER: WATCHORN –v- JUPITER CONSIDERED

October 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content, Part 36

There have been relatively few cases dealing with the approach of the courts under the new Part 36 provisions when a claimant beats their own Part 36 offer at trial. The judgment of HH Judge Purle QC in Watchorn -v-…

COURT ORDERED MEDIATION: DRAFT PRECEDENTS

October 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Useful links

In Bradley -v- Heslin Norris J set out , in strong terms the desirability of a formal order for mediation. Here we look at the precedents available. THE OBSERVATIONS IN BRADLEY  In Bradley -v- Heslin [2014] EWHC 3276 (Ch) “If in…

WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS: STATEMENTS OF ISSUES; PLEADING AND PROOF

October 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Written advocacy

The decision of Mr Justice Walker in Burrows -v- Northumbrian Walker Ltd [2014] EWHC 3305(QB) considers the need for clarity in written submission and for the issues the judge is asked to determine to be clearly defined. It also considers…

ROBUST DECISIONS, CASE MANAGEMENT AND WITNESS EVIDENCE: AVOIDING REVERSE MACROCOSM

October 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

In Tindall Cobham 1 Ltd -v- Adda Hotel  [2014] EWHC 2637 (Ch) Peter Smith J made robust orders to ensure that an application would be heard within days rather than months.  He also made some telling observations in relation to…

SOME THINGS MAY BE BETTER MEDIATED THAN LITIGATED: NEIGHBOUR DISPUTES FOR INSTANCE

October 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

There are some very important observations in the judgment  of Norris J in the case of Bradley -v- Heslin [2014] EWHC 3276 (Ch) today.  This was given in a  neighbour dispute over access and gates which could have been remedied…

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE WAS JUSTIFIED AND REASONABLE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

October 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In the judgment today in  Jet Airways (India) Ltd -v- Barloworld Handling Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 1311 the Court of Appeal reiterated the criteria for pre-action disclosure. The Court upheld a decision ordering pre-action disclosure and were extremely firm in…

MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE ON WITHOUT NOTICE APPLICATIONS: A SALUTARY REMINDER

October 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The previous post on the Evans’ case highlights the duty of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application. In the Evans case it would have been impossible for the claimant to argue material non-disclosure (if indeed there was…

YOU CAN'T GO BEHIND THE OTHER SIDE'S BACK WHEN WITHDRAWING A PART 36 OFFER

October 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36

Mr Justice Leggatt in a judgment given today described the facts in Evans -v- Royal Wolverhampton Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2014] EWHC 3185 (QB) as “remarkable”. It raised the question of “whether a party who requires the court’s permission to…

THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES; JOINT MEETINGS AND OVERREACHING EXPERTS: A CASE TO POINT

October 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Dingemans in Garcia -v- Associated Newspapers Ltd [2014] EWHC 3137 is a defamation action. It contains some interesting examples of evidential issues and problems. Firstly relating to the assessment of witnesses; secondly in relation to…

SORTING MAJOR PROBLEMS OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRIAL: SCHEDULES AND STATEMENT OF ISSUES SHOULD BE PREPARED IN ADVANCE NOT DURING A TRIAL

October 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Disclosure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Written advocacy

The major purpose of case management is to ensure that when a matter reaches trial the parties, and the judge, know precisely what the issues are in Redd Factors  -v- Bombadier Transportation [2014] EWCH 3138 (QB) this process clearly went…

PLEADING AND PROVING ALLEGATIONS OF FRAUD OR DISHONESTY: MULLARKE -v- BROAD: USEFUL LINKS AND GUIDANCE

October 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Written advocacy

Great care needs to be taken in pleading allegations of fraud or dishonesty.  In particular the pleader needs to be sure that there is sufficient evidence to justify the pleading.  This was considered in some detail by Lewison J in…

RULE CHANGES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1st OCTOBER 2014

September 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Rule Changes

A reminder that rule changes come into force on the 1st October with links to the relevant rules and useful articles and guidance. AN OUTLINE OF THE CHANGES The following summary  is taken from The Justice guide  The changes are,…

SUCCESS FEES IN CHILDREN CASES: LIVERPOOL AND MANCHESTER PRACTICE

September 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Damages, Members Content

The question of deducting success fees from the damages of a child remains a vexed one. I am grateful to Gillian Shaw from Paul Rooney LLP Solicitors who sent me the following note in relation to the practice in Liverpool…

COSTS CAPPING IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: DON'T BANK ON THE TIDE BEING IN YOUR FAVOUR

September 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Tidal Energy -v- Bank of Scotland Plc Arden L.J. considered, and rejected, an application for costs capping in relation to a forthcoming Court of Appeal hearing. The Court was keen to discourage satellite litigation in the Court of Appeal….

THINKING OF ISSUING WITHOUT A LETTER BEFORE ACTION? THINK AGAIN IT MAY BE BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH(CARE)

September 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In Baxter Healthcare UK Ltd -v- Fresenius Kabi* (17/09/14) Judge Hacon set out the dangers of issuing proceedings without sending a letter before action. THE ISSUES The claimant issued proceedings without sending a letter before action. The dispute was resolved….

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…

← Previous 1 … 25 26 27 … 31 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

  • COST BITES 440: WHY INDEMNITY COSTS WERE ORDERED A LOOK AT THE CLAIMANTS’ PLEADED CASE: FIRSTLY IT WAS PLEADED TOO WIDELY, SECONDLY THERE WERE THEN ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE CASE OUTSIDE THE PLEADINGS
  • CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS COMING UP LATER THIS YEAR: A NEW DISCOUNT CODE
  • COST BITES 439 : IS THE EXISTENCE OF A COSTS BUDGET A REASON NOT TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS ?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: THE RELEVANCE OF THE CLIENTS BEING SOLELY AT FAULT: SOME DIFFICULT ISSUES TO TACKLE
  • COST BITES 438 : CLAIMANT’S UNTENABLE ARGUMENTS LEADS TO REDUCTION IN COSTS RECOVERED: HOURLY RATES FAR TOO HIGH, EVEN WHEN THE CLAIM WAS “ONLY” FOR £9 MILLION

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
WHEN A COURT MAY MAKE NO ORDER FOR COSTS: THE FACTORS CONSIDERED: 12 KEY POINTS AND A USEFUL CHECKLIST FOR PRACTITIONERS
COST BITES 437: SHOULD THE DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT OF THE ACTION LEAD TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED? YES IT SHOULD...
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...)
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: RED FLAGS AND WITNESS STATEMENTS (1): THE WITNESS THAT GIVES THE COURT THEIR OPINION

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