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
WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Useful links

The previous post looked at the “fish file” checklist  prepared by groups in a recent session I conducted in at one of Kerry Underwood’s courses.  A second checklist was also prepared by the groups and this related to  “defensive litigation”….

OTHER ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS: DEALING WITH THOSE "FISH FILES"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Earlier posts looked at the essential checklists prepared by delegates at the “how to get sued” conference.  Missing from those checklists was any discussion of one real problem for practitioners that can often lead to problems – the “fish file”….

WHEN CAN YOU SERVE WITNESS SUMMARIES? A HIGH COURT CASE ON THE QUESTION OF WHETHER A PARTY IS "UNABLE" TO OBTAIN A WITNESS STATEMENT

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The case of Scarlett -v- Grace (4/6/2014) QBD Phillips J was reported briefly on Lawtel yesterday. It provides an example of the difficulties when a party proposes to serve witness summaries rather than witness statements. THE RULES: CPR 32.9 CPR…

PROVING SOMETHING HAS BEEN POSTED: SWEAR IT TO BE TRUE

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Serving documents

I initially read the Court of Appeal decision of Price -v- Price [2014[ EWCA] Civ with interest because it showed that the old CPR 3.9 still applied in family proceedings.  However Jon Williams pointed out that the case has an…

73rd AMENDMENT TO THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES COMES INTO FORCE TODAY: FINAL TRIO OF LINKS

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Monmouthshire Law Society’s twitter account announced Happy 73rd update to CPR day this morning.  Here are three crucial links so you can join in the celebrations. CELEBRATORY LINKS  A general summary and the rules themselves are here Guidance as to…

YOU CAN AGREE TO EXTEND TIME NOW: BUT SHOULD YOU AGREE TO EXTENSIONS?

June 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes

Parties can agree to extend time from the 5th June.  I have already written on the dangers of the system.  However, if the dangers can be sidestepped, should a litigator agree to extend time. THE HEATED DEBATE: SHOULD PARTIES AGREE EXTENSIONS? This…

"ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS": THE COMPLETE LIST

June 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Damages, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out, Useful links, Witness statements

The “Essential Checklist” series developed out of a workshop series in a course I gave last month. Six groups produced six checklists.  Here is a link to them all. SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: (“SERVICE WITH A SMILE”) Essential points before the…

AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: THE FINAL "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST" & A USEFUL LINK

June 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The final list in the “essential checklist” series is on “avoiding undersettlement”. The day the course was held the Law Society Gazette had published Rachel Rothwell’s piece on Why Cannibalism is coming to PI.  One delegate noted that he had…

PRE-ACTION CONDUCT: ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS AND USEFUL LINKS

June 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

This is the 5th in the series of “Essential Checklists”. The group “Prequel” (the clue is in the name I guess) set out what they thought were essential elements in Pre-action procedure. PREQUEL’S CHECKLIST PRE-ACTION STEPS, PROTOCOL AND LETTERS BEFORE…

COURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR THREE MORE CASES ON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

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

The Court of Appeal is to hear three cases on sanctions on the 16th & 17th June. One of the cases being considered is Utilise -v-  Davies [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch) which was considered in an earlier post on this blog. The…

COSTS, COSTS BUDGETING AND MAKING A LIVING: THE PREQUEL TO THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST

June 1, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

The fourth in our “essential checklist” series was prepared by a group that called itself “Group H”.  The checklist addresses issues relating to recording and recovering costs. GROUP H This was the only group where I was involved in some…

LATE SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM, RETROSPECTIVE EXTENSIONS AND OTHER CAUSES OF SLEEPLESS NIGHTS: A CASE TO POINT.

May 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

The recent case of Kaki –v- National Private Air Transport & National Air Service Ltd  (QBD (Comm) 23/5/2014 raises some interesting issues in relation to the retrospective validation of service of a claim form when that claim form was served…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 20: THE GREAT BIG OVERALL CHECKLIST

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

I suspect that this series could go on indefinitely.  It is drawn to a close with a round up of the key points. KEY POINTS 1. Know what happened in Mitchell and how it could have been avoided. 2. Assume…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 19: PRACTICE "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION" OR DON'T PRACTICE AT ALL

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

This is the 19th (and penultimate) in this series on “surviving Mitchell”. What the Mitchell case makes clear is that there is now precious little room for error in civil procedure. We have to develop systems of “defensive litigation”. That…

“MITCHELL BITES TO PENALISE LITIGANTS WHO FAIL TO COMPLY”: EXTENSIONS OF TIME, APPEALS AND BAHO.

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Baho & Ors –v- Meerza [2014] EWCA Civ 669 is a further example of a litigant coming to grief because they failed to file an application in time and make the application for an extension of time…

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER (2014) IPEC (Judge Hacon) 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED  The importance of a prompt response to procedural issues and setting aside default judgment has been explored previously on this…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: NOT ONE BUT TWO "ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS"

May 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Serving documents, Witness statements

Earlier posts have documented how these checklists were made.  The prequel to the essential checklist sets out matters that practitioners have to watch.  Here I set out the checklist prepared by the group “Stating the Obvious”.   It is no…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE PREQUEL TO THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

As part of the “Essential Checklist” series a group considered the issues relating to witness statements. Prior to the checklist it is worth reviewing some of the essential issues relating to the service and preparation of witness statements. THE ISSUES…

“FAILING TO SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES” AND LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS : GROARKE –V- FONTAINE CONSIDERED

May 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Groarke –v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1679 (QB) centred on a Road Traffic Accident that happened in November 2009.  The central issue on appeal was whether a late application to amend the defence to plead contributory negligence should have been allowed….

SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: ADDING TO THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

One advantage of twitter is that it is instantaneous.  Tweeters today commented on the new practice at Salford of only sending one copy of the sealed claim form back for solicitor service.  This is something that can usefully be added…

SERVICE BY E-MAIL: SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AFTER MITCHELL AND MUCH MORE: BRETT –V- COLCHESTER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a considerable amount of interest in the judgment of Master O’Hare in this case. Firstly  was service by e-mail good service when a party had not complied with the Practice Direction on service by electric means? Secondly what…

A DELIBERATE DECISION NOT TO FILE A WITNESS STATEMENT AND YET RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: MONDE PETROLEUM SA-V- WESTERNAZAGROS LTD CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Monde Petroleum SA –v- Westernzagros Ltd (2014) QBD (Comm) (Hamblen J) 19/05/2014 a party intentionally failed to file a witness statement on time, yet relief from sanctions was granted. (The following is based on the Lawtel summary) THE FACTS…

CPR 3.9: MITCHELL AND APPLYING TO JOIN GROUP LITIGATION: HOLLOWAY -v- TRANSFORM MEDICAL GROUP

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Holloway -v- Transport Medical Group [2014] EWHC 1641 (QB) Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE considered whether the “Mitchell” principles applied to late applications to join the register of claims following a Group Litigation Order. THE JUDGMENT The judgment is available…

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AFTER MITCHELL: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST?

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

There has been much discussion of whether the Mitchell principles impact upon an application have a default judgment set aside.  There are some cases that indicate that the amended CPR 3.9 should be taken into account in relation to a…

“A DISMAL CATALOGUE OF CONFUSION AND ERROR”: SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM, COURT ERRORS AND OTHER MISHAPS

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

An article in the Law Society Gazette this week reported a denial by the Ministry of  Justice that the civil court system had been affected by austerity.  Perhaps the MOJ should read the decision in Stoute -v- LT Operations Ltd…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PRISONS AND SANITATION

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The issue of relief from sanctions was considered by Mr Justice Hickinbottom in Ashton (et al) -v- The Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1624 QB. THE FACTS A large number of prisoners were bringing actions  under the European Convention alleging…

A TWO DAY BREACH IS "TRIVIAL": ANOTHER CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF COSTS BUDGET

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Azure East Midlands Ltd -v- Manchester Aiport Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1644 (TCC) His Honour Judge Grant made an order for relief from sanctions where a costs budget was served two days late. THE BREACH The claimant filed its…

JACKSON L.J. ON AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATES: IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS

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

I have already dealt with the rules to be introduced next month in relation to the parties being able to agree extensions of time in civil proceedings. Today Jackson L.J. made it clear that it was never part of his…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: SERVICE AT “LAST KNOWN” ADDRESS: MORE DANGEROUS POINTS TO WATCH

May 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Following the previous posts as to issues and problems relating to  service  of the claim form some responses have highlighted the difficulties of service at the “last known address”. The rules here are somewhat complex, a detailed knowledge is necessary….

SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: THE "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST"

May 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Service of the claim form

In earlier posts I have described how groups of litigators got together earlier this week to draft essential “safety” checklists for key elements of civil procedure.  Here we have the checklist for service of proceedings. THE TEAM This checklist was…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: THE TIME FOR SERVICE AND THE ADDRESS FOR SERVICE: ESSENTIAL POINTS BEFORE THE ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST

May 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In an earlier post I described the work done on a recent course when delegates developed checklists designed to avoid problems in key areas of civil procedure. I was planning to put the checklists up individually. However in social media…

YOU CAN AGREE TO EXTEND TIME – BUT BE VERY CAREFUL: FIVE DANGER POINTS EXPLORED

May 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes

There is some relief for litigators (and the courts to be honest) now that parties (from the 5th June) are allowed to extend time.  However the new rules introduce some potential traps. It is wise to be aware of these…

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…

← Previous 1 … 26 27 28 … 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

  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.