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 28

THE COURT DIDN’T TELL ME TO FILE PRECEDENT H! WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE PARTIES FAIL TO FILE COSTS BUDGETS BECAUSE OF BEING MISLED BY A COURT FORM?

February 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The penalties for failing to file Precedent H in time are draconian.  What happens if the parties do not file Precedent H because they are misled by the court directions? In Aliasghas Porbanderwalla –v- Daybridge Ltd HH Judge Worster allowed an…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 9: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME AGAIN! LLOYD & ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

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

There is now a lot of evidence of parties taking “opportunistic” points in relation to procedure. That is pointing to historic breaches, often months before a hearing/application, and arguing that these breaches mean that the case/defence should be struck out…

SURVIVAL AFTER MITCHELL: 30 POINT PLAN: WEBINAR AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

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

The CLT Webinar I did last week on 30 points of avoiding problems after Mitchell is now available on demand  from CLT. Not only is this an economic way to get you training done it is a whole lot cheaper than…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CLAIMANT COMING TO GRIEF

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

Prior to the Mitchell decision the easiest way for a claimant to come to grief on a procedural issue was to make a mistake with service of the claim form.  The decision Murrills –v- Berlanda [2014] EWCA Civ 6 shows…

STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES CLAIM BECAUSE OF ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENT: MORE DETAIL PROVIDED

January 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Dave Toulson of Hill Dickinson for a more detailed explanation of the news that prompted the article on drafting witness statements and proving damages. The original tweet was that a claim for hire had been struck…

THE DANGERS OF NOT USING PRE-ACTION PROTOCOLS & THE PRACTICE DIRECTION TO THE FULL: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMS CAUSED BY PREMATURE ISSUE

January 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

The next in the series was going to be a review of the rules and principles relating to pre-action conduct.   However Kerry Underwood has written a post that deals with this issue comprehensively and I have nothing to add.  Here we look…

PUTTING THE POWER TO AGREE TO EXTEND TIME IN THE COURT ORDER: A SHORT NOTE

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

The question of whether the parties can agree to extend time for compliance with a court order is an open one at the moment. See the discussion in the earlier posts on this issue.  There was a short tweet earlier…

COSTS MANAGEMENT HEARINGS AND FORM H: PRACTICAL GUIDANCE AND A USEFUL SCHEDULE

January 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

Costs Management hearings are still  relatively novel.  A previous post set out links to posts and articles that provide some guidance.  Here are a few practical tips and a useful Schedule to highlight the differences.  YOU CAN’T HAVE THINGS TWICE:…

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND PROVING LOSS OF EARNINGS

January 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Witness statements

The previous post dealt with the importance of witness statements in proving heads of loss.   An example was given of a failure to prove loss of earnings through inadequate evidence. LOSS OF EARNINGS ON MY OTHER BLOG I maintain…

MAKE SURE YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT PROVES YOUR CASE

January 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

 The genesis of this article is a tweet earlier today where a solicitor reported that a claim for the cost of hire and storage had been struck out because the witness statement was deficient. “C entire hire, storage & recovery…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 6: "YOU GOTTA HAVE A PLAN": BE READY FOR TRIAL THE DAY YOU ISSUE

January 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The unforgiving nature of the Mitchell decision means that litigators have to be certain that they will be able to comply with any directions that the court orders.  In effect this means that a claimant has to be ready for…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 5: CAN YOU EVEN AGREE EXTENSIONS OF TIME?

January 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The earlier post on extensions of time gained a lot of attention and numerous issues were raised at twitter.  This is such a fast moving area that a case, reported yesterday, deals with some of the issues raised.  I wanted…

TWO NEW CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: WEBB RESOLUTIONS AND LLOYD & SONS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

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

There were two High Court cases on relief from sanctions considered today. Both were decisions  of Mr Justice Turner Here we consider Webb Resolutions –v- E-Surv Limited  [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)and M A  Lloyd –v- PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC…

TWO FURTHER DECISIONS REFUSING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LINKS TO CASES

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are two further High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was refused. Webb Resolutions -v- E Surv [2014] EWHC 49 (QB) MA Lloyd & Sons -v- PPC International [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) These are links to the decisions.  A full discussion…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 4: BE CAREFUL WHEN AGREEING VARIATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

One issue that has arisen consistently since the Mitchell decision in particular is whether the parties can agree to vary directions.  The answer is far from simple. THE RULES The rules are always a good place to start. CPR 2.11…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE? THE APPROPRIATE TEST: AN OBJECT LESSON ON LITIGATION TACTICS IN A POST-MITCHELL WORLD

January 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 With relief from sanctions being notoriously hard to obtain the question of whether a party has complied with an order, particularly an unless order, is now of critical importance. In Dinsdale Moorland Services Ltd –v- Evans 2014] EWHC 2 (Ch)…

MITCHELL: LINKS TO USEFUL ARTICLES AND POSTS

January 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Useful links

THIS POST CONTAINS THE DECISIONS RELATING TO MITCHELL AND THE CASES THAT FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS. LATER LINKS CAN BE FOUND AT DISCUSSIONS OF MITCHELL AT http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/mitchell-links-to-articles-and-posts/ WHAT IS ON THIS POST 1. Zenith Chambers. 2. Indi… Enjoying this post? Become a Civil…

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE CHOICE OF JUDGE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of Mitchell featured in the decision of Mr Justice Turner in Biljani -v- Unum Ltd[2014] EWHC 27 (QB) .  An application for the matter to be listed in front of a High Court judge was refused, part of the…

THE IMPORTANCE OF TRIAL BUNDLES AGAIN: READ LEGAL ORANGE

January 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements, Written advocacy

The earlier post on trial bundles received several comments. It is clearly a matter of interest, and some controversy.  Legal Orange has written a post on Trial Bundles from the point of view of a litigator. LEGAL ORANGE The post…

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: A CHECKLIST TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE

DRAFTING WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT COMPLY WITH THE RULES: A CHECKLIST TOO IMPORTANT TO IGNORE

January 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The earlier post on witness statements had a large number of hits. That post set out the basic techniques when drafting witness statements. However it just as important is that you ensure that the statements  you draft comply with the…

MITCHELL AND INDEMNITY INSURERS: A WORRYING TIME

January 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One obvious concern about the Mitchell fallout is the position of Indemnity insurers. This is reflected in a piece by Hill Dickinson.  The observations need to be noted. HILL DICKINSON’S POST There is a succinct summary of the decisions in…

ON-LINE GUIDANCE ON COSTS BUDGETING AND FILLING OUT FORM H: UPDATED

January 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Useful links

 Form H (Precedent H) is now a central part of the litigation process.  It was the delay in lodging the Form H that led to sanctions being imposed in the Mitchell case.  Many people are facing completion of the form…

NO INTEREST AWARDED ON PRE-JUDGMENT COSTS FOR SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT

January 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Should a successful party have an award of interest on costs paid to their solicitors. In the case of Schuman -v- Veale Wasborough  [2013] EWHC 4070 (QB) Dingemans J considered an application by successful defendants that they be awarded interest on their…

DO YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? ANOTHER KEY ISSUE PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BE CERTAIN ABOUT

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

There was an interesting debate on twitter on Friday evening about whether Mitchell was being cited too widely.  It was reported that, in some cases district judges had rejected the argument that when parties were applying for extension of time…

SECOND ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Searches for “abuse of process and section action” formed more than half of the search terms that brought people to this blog earlier in the week.  It is clear that this is going to be a major subject of litigation…

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES IF THE CLAIMANT HAS JUDGMENT OR THE DEFENCE HAS BEEN STRUCK OUT?

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Liability, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

 One important aspect of the new rules about relief from sanctions is that they apply to defendants as well. A defendant who is late in adducing evidence can be debarred from calling evidence as in the Durrant case. Here we…

MORE MITCHELL MAYHEM: USE OF SQUARE BRACKETS LEADS TO COSTS BUDGET BEING DISALLOWED

December 30, 2013 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out

A  report by Tom Gibson in PI Brief Update makes worrying reading. The headline reads ” Would a district judge strike out a costs budget because it contained the phrase “[Statement of truth]”, in square brackets, rather than the full…

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO  RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

Links to posts and articles on all aspects of  civil procedure. Linking does not indicate approval or agreement but that all discussion on these issues is useful.   RECENT POSTS AND ARTICLES 23rd June 2019 Herbert Smith Freehills Litigation Notes…

AMENDMENTS TO CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 1st JANUARY 2014

December 17, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Rule Changes, Useful links

There are new rules coming into force on the 1st  January. These mainly amend the procedure relating to defamation and the presumption of a jury trial.  However there are other minor amendments. The rules and explanatory text can be found…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: MITCHELL: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND A “GOOD” REASON: AND SO TO BED: A LOOK AT THE CASE LAW

December 17, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

  In Mitchell the Court of Appeal stated that a court should normally consider relief from sanctions in a “non-trivial” case if there were good reasons and referred to the case law relating to extending time for service of the…

FULL COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF ALDINGTON -v- ELS

December 16, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am grateful to Gordon Wignall of No 5 Chambers for sending me a copy of the full transcript of Aldington -v- ELS where a claimant was granted relief from sanctions. (The transcript is upside down – click rotate clockwise…

POST MITCHELL MAYHEM 2: A CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED

December 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Litigation Futures carries a report of a High Court case where relief from sanctions was granted. The link is at http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/exclusive-high-court-grants-first-post-mitchell-relief-sanctions Details will be added to the Mitchell Case Watch later today…. Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member…

PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE: THE APPROPRIATE TEST CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL

December 8, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Smith –v- Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change [2013] EWCA Civ  1585 the Court of Appeal stress that applications for pre-action disclosure should not become “mini trials” and set out the appropriate test for the courts to consider….

DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT FOLOWING MITCHELL: ROMANO –v-K PAPERS (BLACKBURN) LTD

November 29, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The courts now have a clear basis upon which to consider applications for reinstatement following the decision in Mitchell.  The case of Romano –v- K Papers (Blackburn) Ltd an appeal heard at Manchester County Court today (29th November 2013) provides…

MITCHELL: THE COMMENTARY CONTINUES

November 28, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The commentary on the fallout of the Mitchell decision continues apace.  One of the most interesting comments, however, comes from Sir Henry Brooke, former Lord Justice who tweets at @HenryBrooke1. Here we look at those observations and other links to…

DEFAULT, DELAY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL LAYS DOWN THE LAW

November 18, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Boyle –v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis provides another example of the problems caused by late service of evidence. The Court of Appeal set down clear guidance of the new culture of intolerance to delay.  THE…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ORDER OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: ANOTHER CASE GOES TO WASTE

October 11, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

In Biffa Waste Services Ltd –v- Ali Dinler  (QBD 10/10/13) Swift J overturned an order granting relief from sanctions.   THE FACTS Biffa was a personal injury case. The claimant failed to file a pre-trial checklist in time or to…

HOW RELEVANT ARE PART 36 OFFERS TO ISSUE BASED ORDERS? A SALUTARY WARNING ABOUT THE RISKS OF LITIGATION

October 1, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The making of an “issue based” costs order is now a common aspect of litigation.  However how relevant is a Part 36 offer when a court is considering making an “issue based” costs order?  A recent case contains discussion of…

ONE DIRECTION SINGING FROM THE SAME HYMN SHEET ?

ONE DIRECTION SINGING FROM THE SAME HYMN SHEET ?

June 28, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

THE USE OF STANDARD DIRECTIONS   I have put the standard directions as a link because they will normally be the first port of call for anyone drafting directions (and I once spent a frustrating half hour trying to find…

← Previous 1 … 27 28

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

  • AN INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.