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 3
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 55: THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM CONTAINED A (SIGNIFICANTLY) FALSE FACT: JUDGE FINDS THAT THIS WAS PRINCIPALLY DUE TO THE FAULT OF "BARRISTER M"

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 55: THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM CONTAINED A (SIGNIFICANTLY) FALSE FACT: JUDGE FINDS THAT THIS WAS PRINCIPALLY DUE TO THE FAULT OF “BARRISTER M”

February 20, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

It is rare for a judgment about pleadings to be “gripping” reading. We have such a case here. From the opening lines, to the detailed consideration of how the pleadings went wrong, the narrative is compelling. We even have an…

COST BITES 356: DO FIXED COSTS APPLY WHEN THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM A FIXED COSTS REGIME TO ONE WHERE COSTS ARE "AT LARGE"

COST BITES 356: DO FIXED COSTS APPLY WHEN THE CASE IS TRANSFERRED AWAY FROM A FIXED COSTS REGIME TO ONE WHERE COSTS ARE “AT LARGE”

February 20, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

Here we are considering a Court of Appeal decision about what costs order should be made when an action is transferred from a  fixed costs regime  to one where costs are at large. On the face of it the decision…

SERVICE POINTS 28 : EFFECTIVE SERVICE ON A RESIDENCE IN ENGLAND COULD NOT TAKE PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS IN FACT ABROAD - AND LEGALLY PREVENTED FROM RETURNING

SERVICE POINTS 28 : EFFECTIVE SERVICE ON A RESIDENCE IN ENGLAND COULD NOT TAKE PLACE WHEN THE DEFENDANT WAS IN FACT ABROAD – AND LEGALLY PREVENTED FROM RETURNING

February 19, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

We are looking at a Court of Appeal judgment today which overturned a finding that a defendant had been properly served at an address in England.  The defendant was not living in England when proceedings were served and, indeed, there…

COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT: THE APPELLANTS HAD NEVER BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: HOW "UNLESS ORDERS" SHOULD BE CONSTRUED

COURT OF APPEAL ALLOWS APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT: THE APPELLANTS HAD NEVER BREACHED A PEREMPTORY ORDER: HOW “UNLESS ORDERS” SHOULD BE CONSTRUED

February 19, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

For the second time this month we are looking at a successful appeal against the construction of an “unless” order.  In both cases the judges below had found that the appellants had breached the order. In both cases that finding…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EXPERT EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS (ALLOWED IN PART): ADVOCACY AND ARGUMENT - HAD TO GO

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EXPERT EVIDENCE IN WITNESS STATEMENTS (ALLOWED IN PART): ADVOCACY AND ARGUMENT – HAD TO GO

February 18, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

We are looking at a  case where the sole issue the court was considering  was the question of whether passages in the witness statements provided by the claimant were admissible. Unusually the Competition Appeal Tribunal allowed parts of the statements…

COST BITES 353: VARYING A COSTS BUDGETS (1): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED: WHAT IS MEANT BY "SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS"?

COST BITES 353: VARYING A COSTS BUDGETS (1): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED: WHAT IS MEANT BY “SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS”?

February 18, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We are taking a detailed look at a judgment that deals with proposals to vary costs budgets.  This post will look at the judge’s considerations of the rules, principles and guidance that relates to variation of budgets.  Later posts will…

PART 36: RECENT CASES, KEY ISSUES AND KEY PROBLEMS CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2026

PART 36: RECENT CASES, KEY ISSUES AND KEY PROBLEMS CONSIDERED: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2026

February 17, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Part 36, Webinar

A detailed working knowledge of Part 36 in practice is no longer optional for litigators. Recent decisions show the courts applying the rules with increasing rigour, exposing parties to serious and often unexpected costs consequences.   This webinar cuts through…

PROVING THINGS 280: DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE THAT AN ACTION HAD BEEN COMPROMISED: THE TERMS "SUBJECT TO CONTRACT" MEAN THAT ACCEPTANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A BINDING COMPROMISE

PROVING THINGS 280: DEFENDANT FAILS TO PROVE THAT AN ACTION HAD BEEN COMPROMISED: THE TERMS “SUBJECT TO CONTRACT” MEAN THAT ACCEPTANCE DID NOT GIVE RISE TO A BINDING COMPROMISE

February 17, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Documents are often marked “subject to contract”.  This case considers the practical implications of such markings. In particular whether an apparent acceptance of an agreement gave rise to a binding agreement. As we shall see the wording was found to…

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (2):  CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NICE PEOPLE OF TWITTER:

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION (2): CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE NICE PEOPLE OF TWITTER:

February 17, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am here summarising the Advice given by lawyers on the social media site formerly known as Twitter. In April 2019 I asked lawyers what their advice would be for their colleagues in the profession when things go wrong.  Specifically…

COST BITES 351: WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE COSTS BUDGETS IN PRACTICE? "COMPARE AND MATCH" IS NOT ALWAYS AN ACCURATE GUIDE:THE KEY QUESTION IS - WHO WILL BE DOING THE MOST WORK?

COST BITES 351: WHAT HAPPENED TO THOSE COSTS BUDGETS IN PRACTICE? “COMPARE AND MATCH” IS NOT ALWAYS AN ACCURATE GUIDE:THE KEY QUESTION IS – WHO WILL BE DOING THE MOST WORK?

February 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The previous post looked at the judge’s general observations in this case. Here we look how those principles were applied in practice.  It is clear that the arguments that the costs were excessive by way of comparison did not always…

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DATE OF RECEIPT AT COURT FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES AND DATE OF ISSUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE: AVOID TESTING THIS DISTINCTION IF YOU CAN

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DATE OF RECEIPT AT COURT FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES AND DATE OF ISSUE FOR THE PURPOSES OF SERVICE: AVOID TESTING THIS DISTINCTION IF YOU CAN

February 16, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Here we look at an issue that can cause confusion, it is important from the point of view of determining the date from which the date of service runs. The relevant date for limitation purposes is the date of receipt…

COST BITES 349 : THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 100% OF THEIR COSTS: THE SECRETARY OF STATE'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL WAS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR

COST BITES 349 : THE CLAIMANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED 100% OF THEIR COSTS: THE SECRETARY OF STATE’S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE PRE-ACTION PROTOCOL WAS A HIGHLY RELEVANT FACTOR

February 13, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

It is rare for the Court of Appeal to overturn a first instance decision as to costs. We see an example of this happening here.  The Upper Tribunal awarded the claimant 75% of his costs of a judicial review application…

PART 36: LIABILITY ONLY OFFERS AND THE COURT OF APPEAL:  WE DON'T HAVE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY WE DO HAVE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY

PART 36: LIABILITY ONLY OFFERS AND THE COURT OF APPEAL: WE DON’T HAVE CLARITY AND CERTAINTY WE DO HAVE CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITY

February 13, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Part 36, Webinar

Those with long memories will recall the confusion  and uncertainty that the Court of Appeal caused in Carver v BAA Plc [2008] EWCA Civ 412 when the concept of a “near miss” was introduced in relation to Part 36. A…

EXPERT WATCH 35: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO ADDUCE A SUPPLEMENTARY  REPORT AFTER THE TRIAL HAD ENDED

EXPERT WATCH 35: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO ADDUCE A SUPPLEMENTARY REPORT AFTER THE TRIAL HAD ENDED

February 13, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

There are many (if not all) working advocates who have thought, after a hearing is over, “I could have said that”.  The same may well be true of experts.  Here we have an attempt to introduce new material in a…

MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

MEMBER NEWS: A REMINDER OF MEMBER BENEFITS AND WHERE TO FIND THE DISCOUNT CODES: ESSENTIAL TOPICS COVERED IN WEBINARS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR

February 12, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Relief from sanctions, Webinar, Witness statements

A reminder that member subscribers have access to discounts on webinars being presented throughout the year.   The details of the webinars, the  discounts and how to find the discount codes are below.  The first webinar sets out the practical consequences…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 54: ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULARS WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT SOME WORDS NEED TO BE CHANGED: CHOOSE YOUR WORDS WITH CARE...

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 54: ALTHOUGH THE PARTICULARS WOULD NOT BE STRUCK OUT SOME WORDS NEED TO BE CHANGED: CHOOSE YOUR WORDS WITH CARE…

February 12, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are returning to look at the case where the Master refused to strike out pleadings on the grounds that they were an abuse of process.  However it was also made clear that the use of certain words in the…

WHEN PERMISSION  IS  (AND IS NOT) REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A CLAIM BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MINORS: IT STILL HAS SERIOUS COSTS CONSEQUENCES THOUGH

WHEN PERMISSION IS (AND IS NOT) REQUIRED TO DISCONTINUE A CLAIM BROUGHT ON BEHALF OF MINORS: IT STILL HAS SERIOUS COSTS CONSEQUENCES THOUGH

February 12, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Here we are looking at an interesting issue relating to discontinuance.  In some circumstances a claim brought by a minor or protected party cannot be discontinued without the court’s permission; in other circumstances no permission is required. The distinction is…

THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (2): THE COURT CAN ORDER A PARTY TO REQUEST ANY PERSON TO PRODUCE DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION

THE CIVIL PROCEDURE (AMENDMENT) RULES 2026 (2): THE COURT CAN ORDER A PARTY TO REQUEST ANY PERSON TO PRODUCE DISCLOSURE AND INSPECTION

February 11, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Rule Changes

We are continuing with our look at the The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2026 which come into force on the 6th April 2026. Here we look at a totally new provision which gives the court power to order a party to…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DRAFTING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: "IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT F SAYS AND WHAT AN ALGORITHM TELLS F TO SAY"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THE USE OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IN THE DRAFTING OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: “IT IS DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN WHAT F SAYS AND WHAT AN ALGORITHM TELLS F TO SAY”

February 11, 2026 · by gexall · in Artificial Intelligence, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

There is much material about witness evidence and witness statements on this site.  In recent years we have also been discussing the use (and misuse) of artificial intelligence.  We can be fairly sure that there will be much more about…

COST BITES 346: CONDUCT,  "PART 36 OFFERS" AND THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION ON A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: THE COSTS OF "ASSESSMENT" ARE DISTINCT TO THE COSTS OF "PROCEEDINGS"

COST BITES 346: CONDUCT, “PART 36 OFFERS” AND THE STATUTORY PRESUMPTION ON A SOLICITORS ACT ASSESSMENT: THE COSTS OF “ASSESSMENT” ARE DISTINCT TO THE COSTS OF “PROCEEDINGS”

February 10, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In this judgment given yesterday a Costs Judge considered the relevance of conduct in a Solicitors Act assessment. In particular whether an offer expressed as a “Part 36 offer” by the claimant client could amount to “special circumstances” to displace…

DEFENDANTS GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE SERVED LATE: EVEN THOUGH THIS LED TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL

DEFENDANTS GIVEN PERMISSION TO RELY ON SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE SERVED LATE: EVEN THOUGH THIS LED TO THE ADJOURNMENT OF THE TRIAL

February 10, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury, Witness statements

A defendant that wishes to rely on surveillance evidence must choose its timing with extreme care.  If the evidence is disclosed too early then the claimant could be “tipped off”; too late and this could be categorised as an “ambush”. …

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION(1): A PRIMER FOR "WHEN THE SKY IS FALLING"

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION(1): A PRIMER FOR “WHEN THE SKY IS FALLING”

February 9, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Very little (if any) of the legal curriculum is devoted to what to do when things go wrong.  Not enough (in my view) is devoted to preventing things go wrong.  However here we concentrate on what do when something goes…

ANOTHER ISSUE ABOUT UNLESS ORDERS:  CAN A COURT MAKE AN ORDER SPECIFYING A SUM FOR DAMAGES IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT COMPLY?

ANOTHER ISSUE ABOUT UNLESS ORDERS: CAN A COURT MAKE AN ORDER SPECIFYING A SUM FOR DAMAGES IF THE DEFENDANT DOES NOT COMPLY?

February 9, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There have been a number of cases about unless orders recently.  This one looks at the issue of whether the court can make an order and state that, if there is default, the claimant can enter judgment for a specific…

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU MUST AND WHEN YOU CAN'T SERVE THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR: TRY TO AVOID TELLING THE COURT YOU ARE "SURPRISED" BY THE RULES...

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU MUST AND WHEN YOU CAN’T SERVE THE CLAIM FORM ON A SOLICITOR: TRY TO AVOID TELLING THE COURT YOU ARE “SURPRISED” BY THE RULES…

February 9, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The issue of when a claim form can be served on a defendant’s solicitor is one that has been considered many times on this site over the years.  There can be two fatal errors for claimants.  (1) Serving on a…

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026

February 5, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

As regular readers of this site know procedural mistakes derail more civil claims than weak evidence or bad law. Missed deadlines, defective pleadings, non-compliance with court directions and costs failures can all result in serious sanctions — or the claim…

THE CLAIMANTS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: COURT REFUSES AN EXTENSION: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE: OUT OF TIME MEANS OUT OF COURT...

THE CLAIMANTS FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL OUT OF TIME: COURT REFUSES AN EXTENSION: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS HERE: OUT OF TIME MEANS OUT OF COURT…

February 4, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One thing anyone considering an appeal should know, with absolute certainty, is the date the appeal has to be lodged. This, in turn, involves knowing the date on which the period starts running.  Here we see a case where the…

THE PARTIES SHOULD DRAFT ORDERS IN THE TERMS STATED BY THE JUDGE: THE DRAFTING SHOULD NOT BE LITIGIOUS BUT TRANSACTIONAL

THE PARTIES SHOULD DRAFT ORDERS IN THE TERMS STATED BY THE JUDGE: THE DRAFTING SHOULD NOT BE LITIGIOUS BUT TRANSACTIONAL

February 4, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We are looking at two interesting aspects of a decision here. Firstly the judge’s observations on attempts by the claimants to “re-draw” the order made by the judge at the hearing. Secondly the finding that there were no good reasons…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY ii: WHY A JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS' WITNESS: SOME REPLIES WERE "ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS VERBIAGE DESIGNED TO FOB OFF QUESTIONS" HE "PREFERRED NOT TO ANSWER"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY ii: WHY A JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THE EVIDENCE OF THE DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS: SOME REPLIES WERE “ESSENTIALLY MEANINGLESS VERBIAGE DESIGNED TO FOB OFF QUESTIONS” HE “PREFERRED NOT TO ANSWER”

February 4, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

 Knowing the  factors that lead to the evidence of a witness not being accepted is an important part of the litigator’s “skill set”.  Here we look at a case where the evidence of a witness was roundly rejected.   “I…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE "THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY i : COURT WOULD NOT DRAW ADVERSE INFERENCES FROM WITNESSES WHO WERE NOT CALLED TO GIVE EVIDENCE “THE PERMISSIBLE FUNCTIONS OF CROSS-EXAMINATION DO NOT INCLUDE ENABLING THESE DEFENDANTS TO FISH FOR MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF A CASE THAT IS (i) UNPLEADED (ii) IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CASE THAT IS PLEADED”

February 4, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

As you may guess from the title we are looking at witness evidence more than once today.  Firstly we are going to look at an argument from the defendants that a claimant’s failure to call witnesses to give evidence meant…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED : WHEN NON-COMPLIANCE ALMOST APPEARS TO BE A LITIGATION STRATEGY: HAVING A BONA FIDE CLAIM DOES NOT GIVE YOU A FREE PASS

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED : WHEN NON-COMPLIANCE ALMOST APPEARS TO BE A LITIGATION STRATEGY: HAVING A BONA FIDE CLAIM DOES NOT GIVE YOU A FREE PASS

February 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here we have a case where the Court of Appeal considered the Denton principles in some detail.  The judgment provides a useful reminder of some basic principles. Firstly that a litigant seeking relief from sanctions cannot complain about the original…

HIGH COURT TACKLES SOME DIFFICULT PROCEDURAL ISSUES (1): IS A PREVIOUS BREACH NECESSARY FOR A PEREMPTORY ORDER TO BE MADE

HIGH COURT TACKLES SOME DIFFICULT PROCEDURAL ISSUES (1): IS A PREVIOUS BREACH NECESSARY FOR A PEREMPTORY ORDER TO BE MADE

February 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders

We are looking at judgment that is, essentially, all about procedural compliance and the court’s approach to making “unless orders”.  The approach of the appellate court to case management decisions could be added to that list.  It is a detailed…

HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE : THIS IS A REHEARING IN FULL - THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW AN ERROR SUCH AS TO WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ORDER

HIGH COURT SETS ASIDE AN ORDER MADE FOLLOWING AN APPLICATION WITHOUT NOTICE : THIS IS A REHEARING IN FULL – THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO SHOW AN ERROR SUCH AS TO WARRANT SETTING ASIDE THE ORIGINAL ORDER

February 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Here we look at a case where the court set aside an order made without notice. The Master found that the evidence presented to him at the initial hearing was “neither full nor frank”.  It is a reminder of the…

COST BITES 341: THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT LAST 50 DAYS: COURT OF APPEAL ADVOCATES "SAMPLING" APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF £44 MILLION  BILL OF COSTS

COST BITES 341: THIS ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT LAST 50 DAYS: COURT OF APPEAL ADVOCATES “SAMPLING” APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT OF £44 MILLION BILL OF COSTS

February 3, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

It is rare for a court, particularly the Court of Appeal, to take one step aside from the issue being determined and make some general observations on the process of the assessment of costs.  This is one of those rare…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 52 : IF THE DEFENDANTS WERE PLEADING THAT INVIDIVIDUALS WERE INVOLVED IN POSITIVE DECEPTION THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEADED

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 52 : IF THE DEFENDANTS WERE PLEADING THAT INVIDIVIDUALS WERE INVOLVED IN POSITIVE DECEPTION THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PLEADED

February 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Statements of Case

Here we have a case where the judge found that the defendants’ case was pleaded in such a way that it did not allow them to make specific allegations of deception about particular individuals.  If the defendants had a case…

YOU HAVE TO PAY THE FULL COURT FEE: THE FACT THAT A COURT HAS ACCEPTED A FEE DOES NOT RENDER IT "FUNCTUS OFFICIO"

YOU HAVE TO PAY THE FULL COURT FEE: THE FACT THAT A COURT HAS ACCEPTED A FEE DOES NOT RENDER IT “FUNCTUS OFFICIO”

January 30, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Court fees, Members Content

Here we have an ingenious argument that a court could not claim a higher court fee. It was an ingenious argument that failed.  This shows the importance of claimants knowing the value of a case when they issued, and the…

THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH WAS NOT SIGNED BY AN AUTHORISED PERSON:  IT REQUIRES "FACTS" NOT INFORMATION: A SOLICITOR EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM

THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH WAS NOT SIGNED BY AN AUTHORISED PERSON: IT REQUIRES “FACTS” NOT INFORMATION: A SOLICITOR EMPLOYEE SHOULD NOT HAVE SIGNED IN THE NAME OF THE FIRM

January 30, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Witness statements

Here we have an example of a Statement of Truth that was non-compliant it contained the wrong wording and was signed by the wrong person in the wrong way.   It shows the need to ensure that the rules in relation…

PART 36 OFFERS ON COSTS: JUDGE ALLOWS DEFENDANT'S APPEAL: THE OFFER HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN, THE COSTS OF PREPARING THE BILL WERE NOT RECOVERABLE

PART 36 OFFERS ON COSTS: JUDGE ALLOWS DEFENDANT’S APPEAL: THE OFFER HAD NOT BEEN BEATEN, THE COSTS OF PREPARING THE BILL WERE NOT RECOVERABLE

January 30, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I am grateful to barrister James Miller for sending me a copy of this decision which highlights an important issue in relation to Part 36 and the assessment of costs. At first instance a Deputy District Judge found that the…

PART 36 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS: WHAT PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2.00 pm (THREE TRACTORS, TWO FIELDS AND FAILING TO BEAT AN OFFER BY A "WHISKER")

PART 36 IN THE PAST 12 MONTHS: WHAT PRACTITIONERS NEED TO KNOW: WEBINAR 26th FEBRUARY 2.00 pm (THREE TRACTORS, TWO FIELDS AND FAILING TO BEAT AN OFFER BY A “WHISKER”)

January 29, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Part 36, Webinar

The past 12 months have seen some important cases about Part 36. Every civil litigator needs to keep up to date with these developments. This webinar looks at the cases and considers the practical implications for litigators. DATE AND TIME…

EXPERT WATCH 32: A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW AS TO THE INDEPENDENCE (OR OTHERWISE) OF EXPERT WITNESSES

EXPERT WATCH 32: A REVIEW OF THE CASE LAW AS TO THE INDEPENDENCE (OR OTHERWISE) OF EXPERT WITNESSES

January 29, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are looking again at a case looked at yesterday. This is because the judgment contained a useful summary of many leading cases relating to the question of expert bias, or apparent bias. “It is always desirable that an expert…

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026: REMEMBER WE LOOK AT THESE PROBLEMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T HAVE THEM

AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: PROCEDURAL DEFAULT, SANCTIONS AND OTHER ISSUES THAT CAUSE ACTIONS TO FAIL: WEBINAR 6th FEBRUARY 2026: REMEMBER WE LOOK AT THESE PROBLEMS TO TRY TO MAKE SURE YOU DON’T HAVE THEM

January 27, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The next webinar in the “Avoiding the Pitfalls” series is a 90 minute long webinar on the 6th February 2026.  The webinar examines the most common procedural problems and practical difficulties that arise in civil litigation.  It explores where and…

BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH "COURT SEALS": "CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC..."

BEWARE OF FALSE (OR AT LEAST MISLEADING) DOCUMENTS WITH “COURT SEALS”: “CLUMSY ATTEMPTS WHICH COULD MISLEAD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC…”

January 27, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We have seen a few occasions where someone has produced an “official” court document which turned out to be no such thing.  We see another example here, a “warrant” that, on the face of  it had a red circular seal…

ONE OF THE PERILS OF OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION: AN INTERVENER GIVEN LIBERTY TO APPLY TO BRING A POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AN INJUNCTION: LITIGATORS MUST GIVE CAREFUL ADVICE...

ONE OF THE PERILS OF OBTAINING AN INJUNCTION: AN INTERVENER GIVEN LIBERTY TO APPLY TO BRING A POTENTIAL CLAIM FOR DAMAGES CAUSED BY AN INJUNCTION: LITIGATORS MUST GIVE CAREFUL ADVICE…

January 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Injunctions, Members Content

A party seeking an injunction is usually required to give an undertaking as to damages. That undertaking normally extends to the defendants/respondents to the injunction. However the terms of the injunction often give third parties affected by the injunction a…

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" AND A DENIAL: IF YOU DENY - YOU HAVE TO SAY WHY...

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE IMPORTANT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A “NON-ADMISSION” AND A DENIAL: IF YOU DENY – YOU HAVE TO SAY WHY…

January 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything.  Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”.  Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial.   It is important that practitioners know the…

PART 36: DOES A JUDICIAL READING DAY COUNT IN THE CALCULATION OF "21 DAYS" ? WHAT A DIFFERENCE A (READING) DAY MAKES...

PART 36: DOES A JUDICIAL READING DAY COUNT IN THE CALCULATION OF “21 DAYS” ? WHAT A DIFFERENCE A (READING) DAY MAKES…

January 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

We have seen numerous cases on this blog where matters have been left the “last minute” and the rules as to the calculation of time become important.  Here we have an interesting example in relation to Part 36.  An offer…

COST BITES 335: DID FIXED COSTS APPLY? THE EXCEPTIONS, THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE EFFECT OF PART 36 CONSIDERED

COST BITES 335: DID FIXED COSTS APPLY? THE EXCEPTIONS, THE TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND THE EFFECT OF PART 36 CONSIDERED

January 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Aofie Murphy from Brabners for sending me a copy of this judgment this morning. It relates to fixed costs (i) the exceptions; (ii) the transitional provisions; (iii) whether a Part 36 offer displaced them.  It has…

THE COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A PEREMPTORY ORDER IN A SOLICITOR - CLIENT ACTION: LOTS TO LEARN HERE IN TERMS OF BOTH COSTS AND PROCEDURE

THE COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A PEREMPTORY ORDER IN A SOLICITOR – CLIENT ACTION: LOTS TO LEARN HERE IN TERMS OF BOTH COSTS AND PROCEDURE

January 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions

Here we are looking at a case that bristles with issues both in relation to solicitor and own client costs, but also in relation to civil procedure and compliance with court orders. It serves as a reminder that a client…

THROWBACK FRIDAY: WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON'T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT (FROM JANUARY 2018)

THROWBACK FRIDAY: WITNESS STATEMENTS THAT DON’T COMPLY WITH THE RULES: 10 REASONS WHY GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION IS IMPORTANT (FROM JANUARY 2018)

January 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Today we go back to a post from January 2018 on a point that remains just as relevant today.   There is a mandatory requirement that a witness give the source of their information and belief.  A surprising number of witness…

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SPECIFIC ISSUES: WHEN SHOULD A  "COMPELLING REASON" PREVENT JUDGMENT BEING GIVEN? (NOT HERE...)

SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON SPECIFIC ISSUES: WHEN SHOULD A “COMPELLING REASON” PREVENT JUDGMENT BEING GIVEN? (NOT HERE…)

January 22, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury, Statements of Case, Summary judgment

One ground for resisting an application for summary judgment is that there is a “compelling reason why the case or issue should be disposed of at trial”.  It is unusual for the issue of a “compelling reason” to be considered,…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 50: A CHANGE OF COUNSEL IS NOT A GOOD REASON TO PERMIT AMENDED PLEADINGS(AKA WHY FAMILY LAWYERS NEED TO READ THIS SERIES...)

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 50: A CHANGE OF COUNSEL IS NOT A GOOD REASON TO PERMIT AMENDED PLEADINGS(AKA WHY FAMILY LAWYERS NEED TO READ THIS SERIES…)

January 20, 2026 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

I cannot recall dealing with a case in this series which involved the Family Courts. However we have a detailed exposition and consideration of the relevant principles relating to late amendment here. One factor is the absence of a good…

COST BITES 332 : COURT MAKES AN ORDER FOR  INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS OF £43 MILLION - AND THIS IS AFTER TAKING A "CAUTIOUS APPROACH" TO THE CLAIMANTS' EVIDENCE

COST BITES 332 : COURT MAKES AN ORDER FOR INTERIM PAYMENT OF COSTS OF £43 MILLION – AND THIS IS AFTER TAKING A “CAUTIOUS APPROACH” TO THE CLAIMANTS’ EVIDENCE

January 19, 2026 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content

This judgment given today contains a number of important points in relation to costs. The headline point is obviously an interim award of £43 million was made. This was actually less than 50% of the sum being sought.  One of…

← Previous 1 2 3 4 … 28 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

  • 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"
  • 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...)
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...

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.