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 27

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: THE NEW RULES IN FULL

May 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It required a statutory instrument to reinstate the ability to extend time that the Jackson Report never intended to take away. THE NEW RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014 come into force on the 5th June 2014….

SURVIVING MITCHELL 18: RECOGNISING THAT 99.8% OF LITIGATORS ARE STARK RAVING BONKERS

May 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Damages, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

There is a growing trend of “cannibalism” in the legal profession. Advertisements on my local radio station this morning were asking “do you want to sue your lawyer”?  What is the legal profession doing to protect itself?  The answer is…

MASSIVE DELAY, SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND THE MITCHELL PRINCIPLES: MID-EAST SALES LTD –v- UNITED ENGINEERING & THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN CONSIDERED

May 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the many moot points that arise from Mitchell is how far the amendment to the overriding objective and CPR 3.9 impact upon applications to have judgment set aside.  This issue was considered by Burton J in Mid-East Sales…

SKELETON ARGUMENTS: IF YOU DON'T DO THEM PROPERLY YOU WON'T GET PAID!

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Written advocacy

The judicial review/planning law case of Secretary of State for Local Government -v-  Hopkins Development Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 470 contains some interesting observations of general interest to civil litigators. THE SKELETON ARGUMENTS Jackson L.J. prefaced his judgment with observations…

AMENDING PLEADINGS LATE AND MITCHELL: NOT A SMOOTH JOURNEY

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

What relevance do the Mitchell principles have in relation to applications to amend pleadings. Particularly when those applications are made late?  This was considered by  Mrs Justice Andrews in Dany Lions Ltd -v- Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC (QB) 928….

CHANGING THE TRIAL DATE : A CASE IN POINT: MITCHELL REMAINS A "TOP BRAND"

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

Ever since the introduction of the Woolf reforms the trial date has been viewed as fairly sacrosanct. Once set it is hard to change without a good reason. This position has probably hardened as a result of Mitchell.  The issue…

A WORD ABOUT BUNDLES: MORE VIEWS FROM THE BENCH: RULES APPLY TO JUDICIAL REVIEW TOO

May 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

The article I wrote on trial bundles remains one of the most visited posts on this blog.  It is always one of the most visited posts each working day.   Proper preparation can make a major different to the efficient…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 3: THE "LITIGATOR'S DILEMMA": DO YOU TAKE THE "MITCHELL" POINT?

May 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

This is the third in the series examining the practical consequences of the Chartwell decision. The first post looked at the importance of serving witness statements on time,  the second at the effect on the criteria for reinstatement. Here we…

PLEADING MITIGATION OF LOSS: WHY THE PRACTICE DIRECTION IS (ALMOST ALWAYS) WRONG AND THE RULES ARE A SHAMBLES

May 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Statements of Case

It is well established law that the burden of proving a failure to mitigate loss lies with the defendant.   It is for the defendant to establish that the claimant failed to act reasonably.  Somewhat surprisingly a Practice Direction in…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 2: OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IS DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

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

The Court of Appeal decision in Chartwell –v- Fergies Properties  has already been considered in detail.  An earlier article dealt with the importance of serving witness statements on time.  Here we consider the implications for the principles relating to granting…

THE COURT SERVICE AND THE "SECRET STATE": ANOTHER EXAMPLE FROM "LEGAL CHAP"

May 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

A blog post yesterday highlighted the problems that solicitors had been having with some courts insisting that there was a “secret” letter that meant Part 8 applications could not be issued for minor approval applications. After considerable delay it was…

THE APPROPRIATE FEE FOR PART 8 APPLICATIONS: CLARIFICATION AT LAST

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

In a post in February “Civil Procedure and the Secret State” complaints were made of a “secret” policy introduced by the courts of changes to a demand that Part 7 proceedings be issued instead of Part 8 proceedings and that higher…

THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED WHEN A PARTY MAKES AN APPLICATION AHEAD OF THE DATE OF THE BREACH: THE ROBERT CRITERIA CONSIDERED

April 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) it was made clear that Mitchell principles did not apply in cases where an application was made prior to the date of breach.   The principles in    Robert -v- Momentum Services [2003] EWCA…

HAS PROPER DISCLOSURE BEEN GIVEN? A NEW AREA OF BATTLE. GLOBAL MARINE DRILLSHIPS LIMITED –V- WILLIAM LA BELLA [2014] EWHC 1230 (Ch) CONSIDERED

April 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the post Mitchell world parties are anxious to demonstrate that their opponents have not complied with orders of the court and, consequently, should have their actions struck out.  These arguments are likely to be particularly problematic in issues relating…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: WHAT DOES “TRIVIAL” ACTUALLY MEAN? A LOOK AT THE CASES

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 If you attend one of the, numerous, “Jackson” and “Mitchell” conferences that abound at the moment you can easily make the lecturer sweat. Ask them to define “trivial”.  Whether a breach is “trivial” or not is crucial to the way…

A BUDGET SERVED A DAY LATE IS A “TRIVIAL” ERROR: WAIN –v- GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 1274 (TCC) CONSIDERED

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It was made clear in Mitchell that the courts should not concern themselves with “trivial” breaches, however what was meant by “trivial” was never defined.  In Wain –v- Gloucestershire County Council Judge Grant, sitting as a judge of the High…

WHAT IS THE DATE OF SERVICE? THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE “DEEMED” DATE OF SERVICE AND THE “EFFECTED” DATE OF SERVICE

April 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

T & L SUGARS LTD V TATE & LYLE INDUSTRIES LTD [2014] EWHC 1066 Problems with service and the date of service continue to abound. They have always been subject to a much stricter regime.  In particular the date of…

IMPORTANT CHANGES ON THE 22ND APRIL: NEW COURT FEES AND NEW STATEMENT OF TRUTH ON COST BUDGET

April 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Rule Changes

The previous post dealt with the date of applications and considered the potential implications if an application was not accompanied by the relevant fee. It seems timely to remind everyone that: 1. New Court Fees come into force on the 22nd…

WHEN IS AN APPLICATION "MADE"? A MATTER THAT COULD BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE

April 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) discussed in a previous post means that there is a highly significant difference between applications made before the date of compliance and those made afterwards.   An application made after the…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 17: MAKE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE DEFAULT AND OBTAIN REALISTIC DIRECTIONS

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

It is no coincidence that Rule 17 is identical to Rule 3.  In fact I could easily, and without apology, repeat this principle as rules 10 – 20.  If you cannot comply with a court order, direction or rule then…

MAKING AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE DATE OF DEFAULT SAVES THE DAY: KANERIA -v- KANERIA CONSIDERED

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

The Mitchell principles govern what happens when a party requires relief from sanctions.  An open question remained as to the principles  that apply  when a party applies for an extension of time before the expiry of the date for compliance….

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 1: JUST DON'T EVER SERVE WITNESS STATEMENTS LATE

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized, Witness statements

It is highly dangerous for litigators to view the  decision of the Court of Appeal in Chartwell -v- Fergies as any kind of step away from the Mitchell principles.  The case has already been outlined in detail in an earlier post….

TWO CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: (I) LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS (II) NO SCHEDULE OF COSTS

April 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

There are two cases reported on Lawtel this morning which exemplify problems of modern litigation and relief from sanctions. The first involves late service of a witness statement in a fatal accident case; the second the failure to file a…

SIR JACK JACOB QC AND THE FABRIC OF ENGLISH CIVIL JUSTICE: LESSONS FOR TODAY?

April 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized

With the speed in which modern litigation is conducted it is often difficult to pause and reflect, let alone look back to assess whether experts from the past can assist.  For some time I have been looking for a copy…

CAN MITCHELL BE UTILISED IF THERE ARE SEVERAL MINOR BREACHES? UTILISE -v- CRANSTOUN CONSIDERED: LATE FILING OF COSTS BUDGETS CAUSES ANOTHER PARTY TO COME TO GRIEF

April 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Utilise -v- Cranstoun [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch) Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, considered another issue arising out of the Mitchell criteria – in essence what is the effect of two trivial breaches on…

"PAPER MUST VANISH FROM THIS COURT": CANADIAN JUDGE ORDERS E-TRIAL TO PREVENT COURTS BECOMING MUSEUM PIECES

April 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

At a time when increased resources are promised to the court it is interesting to read the observations in the Canadian Courts of Brown J in the case of Broome Financial Corporation -v- Bank of Montreal 2014 ONSC 2178 (CanLII). Essentially…

ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO GIVE DISCLOSURE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Medical Supplies and Services Ltd -v- Acies & Gosling [2014] EWHC 1032 (QB) the claimant came to grief because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order for disclosure. Relief from sanctions was refused.  It provides another object…

COST BUDGET REQUIREMENT DOES NOT APPLY TO PART 8 CASES: A CASE IN POINT

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There has been considerable discussion about whether the requirements to lodge a costs budget applies to Part 8 cases.  Part 8 cases are automatically allocated to the Multi Track and the requirements to lodge a budget was thought to apply….

SURVIVING MITCHELL 15: SHARE THE PAIN

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Most of the burden of complying with time periods and court orders lies with the solicitor.  However a solicitor’s life can be made easier by making sure that all those concerned with the litigation process know of the deadlines involved…

AMENDMENTS TO THE CPR TO ALLOW A BUFFER: THE TIMETABLE

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There has been some discussion about whether, and when, the Civil Procedure Rules will be amended to allow the parties to agree to vary directions.  I am grateful to Katherine van Aardt  of Plxus Law for sending me information which…

THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE THEIR OPINIONS: IT HINDERS RATHER THAN HELPS YOUR CASE

April 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

A post yesterday reviewed the comments on witness statements made in the Jackson Report.  One major criticism was that witness statements were being used to advance matters of opinion and not fact.  A case decided yesterday exemplifies that problem. It…

REPORT OF A CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED ON APPEAL TO CIRCUIT JUDGE

April 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Reports of decisions in relation to procedure, particularly relief from sanctions, are always welcome.  I am grateful to Simon Young of Kings Chambers for his report of the case of Cook -v- Danter. It is a case where a circuit…

WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 4: PROBLEMS WITH WITNESS STATEMENTS: LENGTHY, IRRELEVANT AND RAMBLING

April 8, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The Jackson Reforms made only minor amendments to the rules relating to witness statements.  However the Reports, particularly the Preliminary Report, disclosed a real issue in relation to over-extensive report. THE “TWO NATIONS” OF WITNESS STATEMENTS The preliminary report demonstrated…

WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 3: CASE MANAGEMENT AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME

April 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Both Jackson reports considered that case management was closely allied with costs management. Here I want to look at two aspects – the need for a realistic timetable and agreements to extend time. DIRECTIONS MUST BE REALISTIC At 6.5 of…

ANOTHER CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE SERVED LATE

April 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Michael Ditchfield of Kings Chambers for his sending me details of a recent appeal where the Circuit  Judge overturned a decision where, initially, relief from sanctions had been granted. This emphasises the point that, although the…

COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES APPEAL AGAINST RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BEING GRANTED IN CHARTWELL ESTATES CASE

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

Relief from sanctions was granted  by Mr Justice Globe in the case of Chartwell Estates -v- Fergies and this has been discussed, at length, in earlier posts in this blog.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal today. Reasons…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 14: LITIGATORS MUST KNOW ABOUT CREDIBILITY

April 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

 I am picking up on a point in Kerry Underwood’s article on Rules of Survival. In that article he emphasised the need for a client to “pass a test” of being able to be “Mitchell compliant” before the client is…

UPDATED GUIDANCE: LINKS TO HELP IN COMPLETING PRECEDENT H AND COSTS BUDGETING

April 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

Some blog posts always have a regular and large number of visitors each day.  The post in January on  “On-Line Guidance on filling in Form H” is one of these.  Here I provide links to developments since January and to…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT AGAIN: MCTEAR CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

March 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Striking out, Witness statements

The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] EWHC 722 (Ch) was looked at briefly in  an earlier post in relation to the number of cases cited to the Court.  Here we look at the substantive decision in relation to applications…

THE COURTS SHOULD NOT MAKE PEREMPTORY ORDERS LIGHTLY: PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION –V- ZULFIKAR MASTERS CONSIDERED

March 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 The fact that relief from sanctions is now  more difficult emphasises the principle that courts should not make peremptory orders lightly.  The case of Porter Capital –v- Zulfikar (19/3/1014) only on Lawtel at present) is a case to point.  THE…

MITCHELL CRITERIA AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS

March 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a discussion of the Mitchell criteria in the context of setting aside a default judgment in the case of Mole -v- Hunter [2014]  EWHC 658 QB. (Tugendhat J). THE FACTS Judgment in default had been entered on a…

MITCHELL CASE IN THE NEWS AGAIN: THIS TIME ON NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE

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

Despite the costs order upheld by the Court of Appeal the Mitchell libel action continues.   There is a report of a decision today by Tugendhat in relation to an application for disclosure [2014]  EWHC 879 (QB).  It concerned an…

LORD JACKSON'S RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL

March 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Civil Justice Council review of the Jackson reforms received 70 papers in total.  The only ones generally available, to the best of my knowledge, are the ones available on this blog  and the paper provided by Lord Jackson which…

LAW SOCIETY CIVIL JUSTICE CONFERENCE: 30th APRIL 2014: THE PLACE TO BE

March 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am one of the speakers at The Law Society Civil Justice Section Conference on the 30th April 2014, details of which can be found here. “Venue:The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL Cost:From free  Overview CPD Hours…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST "INNOCENT" PARTY

March 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Lakatamia Shipping -v- Nobu Su [2014] EWHC 796 has been dealt with before  on this blog in relation to a successful application for relief from sanctions. The judge’s comments on the costs of the application are now available…

WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 1: SANCTIONS: WHAT WAS SAID & WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

March 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are lots of events coming up dealing with the first anniversary of the Jackson reforms.  It would be an opportune time to look back at the Jackson Report itself to remind us what it said on certain key issues….

SO CPR 3.9 HAS BEEN MADE EASIER? McTEAR COULD BRING A TEAR TO THE EYE

March 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the avowed aims of amending CPR 3.9 was to make the judge’s job simpler. The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] demonstrates that it has precisely the opposite effect. THE JACKSON REPORT ON THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS In…

READ LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY: VIEWS OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS ON MITCHELL

March 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Anyone interested in how the Mitchell principles should be construed and may develop should read Litigation Futures  today and its report of the Civil Justice Council of the 24th March 2014. CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS In…

COULD CPR 3.10 BE THE LITIGATORS NEW BEST FRIEND? THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL PETROLEUM CONSIDERED (AND THEY ARE ENORMOUS)

March 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) Popplewell held that the provisions of CPR 3.10 meant that  service of the particulars of claim by e-mail could be good service and the default judgment entered thereafter…

SERVICE BY E-MAIL: IMPORTANT DECISION IN INTEGRAL -v- SCU FINANZ ON CPR 3.10

March 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

  There is an important discussion of the effect of serving by e-mail by Popplewell J in the case of Integral Petroleum SA  -v- SCU Finanz SA   [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) The decision relates to serving process by electronic…

← Previous 1 … 26 27 28 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

  • 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…)
  • 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?
  • SERVICE POINTS 47: THE CASE ABOUT THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND THE UNSEALED CLAIM FORM: A RARE EXAMPLE OF “DENTON” PRINCIPLES APPLYING IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES
  • THE NEW SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 4: “CHOOSING SUPERVISORS” (THERE IS MUCH MORE TO THIS THAN MEETS THE EYE): PLUS TWO USEFUL CHECKLISTS
  • BOTH SIDES WANTED A STRIKE OUT FOR NON-COMPLIANCE – BUT GOT NOWHERE (A FAIRLY EXPENSIVE – AND FRUITLESS DAY OUT…): “LOCKED HORNS” AND “SPIRITED CORRESPONDENCE”

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