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 5
THE SOLICITOR AND THE STING OPERATION (2): WHY THE JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THAT THE CLAIMANTS WERE UNAWARE OF THE STRATEGY BEING USED

THE SOLICITOR AND THE STING OPERATION (2): WHY THE JUDGE DID NOT ACCEPT THAT THE CLAIMANTS WERE UNAWARE OF THE STRATEGY BEING USED

November 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are returning again to the case where the claimants arranged the taping of meetings with the defendants’ solicitors.  The judge was sceptical of the claimants’ assertions that they were not fully aware of the methods being used. (This case…

PERMISSION TO APPEAL "SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON" AND A FRIENDLY STATE

PERMISSION TO APPEAL “SOME OTHER COMPELLING REASON” AND A FRIENDLY STATE

November 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

CPR 52.6(1)(b) states that a court can give permission to appeal where ” there is some other compelling reason for the appeal to be heard”. That rule is rarely considered.  However we a direct consideration of that that rule in…

SERVICE POINTS 19: THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION DESPITE NOT USING PART 11 (AND, PERHAPS, A WORKING EXAMPLE OF WHY LITIGATORS NEED TO READ THIS BLOG...)

SERVICE POINTS 19: THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION DESPITE NOT USING PART 11 (AND, PERHAPS, A WORKING EXAMPLE OF WHY LITIGATORS NEED TO READ THIS BLOG…)

November 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are looking at another claim form case. This time the issue related to whether the defendant had made the correct application and, if it had not, whether it was prevented from arguing the court did not have jurisdiction.  What…

THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITOR HAS BEEN "SET UP", SECRETLY RECORDED AND TOLD US THINGS HE SHOULD NOT: NOW WE WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THOSE RECORDINGS: QUITE A CASE THIS...

THE DEFENDANTS’ SOLICITOR HAS BEEN “SET UP”, SECRETLY RECORDED AND TOLD US THINGS HE SHOULD NOT: NOW WE WANT SUMMARY JUDGMENT BASED ON THOSE RECORDINGS: QUITE A CASE THIS…

November 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Summary judgment, Witness statements

Here we have an extraordinary case.  The claimants’ employed a private enquiry agent to meet, on a pretence, with the defendants’ solicitor.  That meeting was used by the enquiry agent to obtain information about the defendants’ case. It was videoed…

COST BITES 308: SHOULD BUDGETING TAKE PLACE IN A £340 MILLION CASE? TAXIS DRIVERS WANT TO KNOW THE FARE IN ADVANCE

COST BITES 308: SHOULD BUDGETING TAKE PLACE IN A £340 MILLION CASE? TAXIS DRIVERS WANT TO KNOW THE FARE IN ADVANCE

November 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The usual “cut off” point for costs budgeting is £10 million.  Here we are looking at a case where the court considering budgeting in a case with a value of £340 million.  The judgment contains interesting, and important, observations on…

CONTEMPT OF COURT (3): DOES THE ABSENCE OF A PENAL NOTICE PREVENT COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS? ARE THERE TWO TIERS OF COURT ORDER? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAS STRONG VIEWS…

November 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Members Content

Does the absence of a penal notice on a court order mean that a party in default cannot be subject to committal proceedings?  This was the question addressed by the Court of Appeal in this case.  The possibility that litigants…

EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: THE CASES (AND THE LESSONS) CONSIDERED IN A WEBINAR ON THE 20th NOVEMBER 2025

EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025: THE CASES (AND THE LESSONS) CONSIDERED IN A WEBINAR ON THE 20th NOVEMBER 2025

November 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Relief from sanctions, Webinar

This has been quite a year for experts in the courts.  All kinds of mistakes and errors have been reported upon.  These are expensive issues for litigants and sometimes for the experts involved.  This webinar looks at cases relating to…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: "MISLEADING AND UNTRUE STATEMENTS... HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE" (COURT OF APPEAL ARE NOT HAPPY...)

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “MISLEADING AND UNTRUE STATEMENTS… HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE COURT ON BEHALF OF THE CHIEF CONSTABLE” (COURT OF APPEAL ARE NOT HAPPY…)

November 12, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Committal proceedings, Members Content, Witness statements

This week we are looking at a remarkable case.  Shortly before a matter was due to be heard in the Court of Appeal the respondent (the Chief Constable of a police force) filed documents which showed that numerous witness statements…

DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025

November 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Relief from sanctions

This year has see more than its fair share of cases relating to default, sanctions and wasted costs. Knowing what those cases are, the problems that arose, how they were caused and the results are essential skills for litigators.  More…

TALES FROM THE COST LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS (3): COSTS JUDGE SIMON BROWN ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF COSTS BUDGETING

TALES FROM THE COST LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS (3): COSTS JUDGE SIMON BROWN ON THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF COSTS BUDGETING

November 11, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

Costs Judge Brown makes the point here that costs budgeting is here to stay. There are a few basic issues, the “nuts and bolts” of budgeting which help ensure that the whole process runs smoothly. (You can never underestimate the…

SERVICE POINTS 18: DECISION TODAY:  THE CLAIMANT DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE CLAIM FORM UNTIL AFTER IT EXPIRED, YET THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS UNYIELDING

SERVICE POINTS 18: DECISION TODAY: THE CLAIMANT DID NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVE THE CLAIM FORM UNTIL AFTER IT EXPIRED, YET THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS UNYIELDING

November 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

We are continuing our examination of the Court of Appeal judgment today in relation to service of the claim form.   The claimant’s solicitors received the claim form after the date it had expired. Nevertheless the Court of Appeal upheld the…

SERVICE POINTS 17:  BREAKING NEWS... IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE CLAIM FORM FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

SERVICE POINTS 17: BREAKING NEWS… IMPORTANT DECISION ON THE DATE OF ISSUE OF THE CLAIM FORM FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY

November 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

The procedural problems caused by service of the claim form continue unabated.  Here we look at a decision of the Court of  Appeal today which highlights the very real dangers for claimants. Mistakes or delays by the court service may…

MAZUR MATTERS 35: DOES AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON SIGNING AN APPLICATION MEAN IT CAN BE STRUCK OUT "WITHOUT MORE"?

MAZUR MATTERS 35: DOES AN UNAUTHORISED PERSON SIGNING AN APPLICATION MEAN IT CAN BE STRUCK OUT “WITHOUT MORE”?

November 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Here we are looking at case report which contains a reference to Mazur and appears to suggest that signature of an application by an unauthorised person means that the application is “liable to be struck out”.  As it turns out…

TALES FROM THE COSTS LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS 1 : MAZUR ISSUES: WAS IT CORRECTLY DECIDED? WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COST LAWYERS ARE REGULATED

TALES FROM THE COSTS LAW CONFERENCE SOME BRIEF POINTS 1 : MAZUR ISSUES: WAS IT CORRECTLY DECIDED? WHY IT IS IMPORTANT THAT COST LAWYERS ARE REGULATED

November 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Today I am writing directly from the Association of Costs Lawyers conference in London. Unsurprisingly the first two speakers considered Mazur.  This is a highly abbreviated version of their talks.  ANDREW ROY KC Andrew, kindly referring to this blog as…

MAZUR MATTERS 34: "LEGAL EXECUTIVES" AND THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT LITIGATION AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION PAPER FROM 2010: ANOTHER PIECE OF THE "HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED"? JIGSAW

MAZUR MATTERS 34: “LEGAL EXECUTIVES” AND THE RIGHT TO CONDUCT LITIGATION AN INTERESTING DISCUSSION PAPER FROM 2010: ANOTHER PIECE OF THE “HOW HAS THIS HAPPENED”? JIGSAW

November 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We have, in the past few months, been addressing issues that arise from a statute passed some 18 years ago. The issues in relation to the obligation of solicitors and authorised persons (and only solicitors and authorised persons) to conduct litigation…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 35:  THE DEFENDANTS' ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD RUN A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT PLEADINGS WAS "NOTHING MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING" (OR PERHAPS TANGERINE DREAMING)

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 35: THE DEFENDANTS’ ARGUMENT THAT THEY COULD RUN A PARTICULAR ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE CURRENT PLEADINGS WAS “NOTHING MORE THAN WISHFUL THINKING” (OR PERHAPS TANGERINE DREAMING)

November 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Here we are looking at a pleadings issue that arose in the Intellectual Property Patents Court.   The scientific issues here may be complex, however the rules remain the same. The judge found that that the defendants’ pleaded case did not…

THE CLAIMANT RELIED ON A FALSE AUTHORITY: THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LITIGANT TO CHECK THE CITATION

THE CLAIMANT RELIED ON A FALSE AUTHORITY: THE CONTEXT OF THIS CASE MADE IT DIFFICULT FOR THE LITIGANT TO CHECK THE CITATION

November 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We are looking again at the phenomenon of “false” authorities. However in this case the courts were more forgiving of the litigant who had relied on a non-existent case.  The judgment does, however, show the need for care in legal…

PROVING THINGS 273: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: IT "BEGGARS BELIEF" THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW OF THE RELEVANT MATTERS

PROVING THINGS 273: COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS FINDINGS OF FACT: IT “BEGGARS BELIEF” THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW OF THE RELEVANT MATTERS

November 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal overturned the trial judge’s findings of fact at trial.  Usually this is difficult, or the court acts with some reticence, here the Court uses the phrase “it beggars belief”…

MAZUR MATTERS 33: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (2): THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTER TO THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE

MAZUR MATTERS 33: MAZUR IN PARLIAMENT (2): THE LETTER FROM THE MINISTER TO THE JUSTICE COMMITTEE

November 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We continue with our rare trip inside the Houses of Parliament by looking at the response that the Minister for Courts and Legal Services to the letter from the  Chair of the Justice Committee.   (We are seeing how Mazur…

DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR...

DEFAULT AND SANCTIONS CASES IN THE COURTS IN 2025: WEBINAR 12th NOVEMBER 2025: LOOKING AT MISTAKES IN LITIGATION TO AVOID REPEATS NEXT YEAR…

November 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Webinar

It is that time of year when we can look back and reflect on events of the previous 12 months. Here we are looking at what lessons can be learnt from cases on default and sanctions since November 2024.  As…

COST BITES 305: THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST A PARTY WHEN TWO ACTIONS WERE "JOINED" AND NOT "CONSOLIDATED": AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE RULES

COST BITES 305: THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO AWARD COSTS AGAINST A PARTY WHEN TWO ACTIONS WERE “JOINED” AND NOT “CONSOLIDATED”: AN IMPORTANT DISTINCTION IN THE RULES

November 5, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

We are looking at a case where the appellant was successful in overturning an award for costs made against him in relation to one set of proceedings.  The judgment highlights the important distinction between “joinder” and “consolidation”.  That distinction can…

MAZUR MATTERS 31:   THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD REVIEW OF "WHY MAZUR WAS A SURPRISE"  - AND WHAT CHANGED AFTERWARDS?

MAZUR MATTERS 31: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD REVIEW OF “WHY MAZUR WAS A SURPRISE” – AND WHAT CHANGED AFTERWARDS?

November 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

The Legal Services Board has set out the scope of its review of “advice and guidance provided to the profession on the conduct of litigation by approved regulators and regulatory bodies”.   Stripped down to its basics the question being asked…

DEFENCES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE:  SHOULD RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BE GRANTED?

DEFENCES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE: SHOULD RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BE GRANTED?

November 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

Here we look at a case where the defendants failed to comply with a peremptory order for disclosure.  The defences stood struck out.  The issue the judge had to determine was whether relief from sanctions should be granted. This in…

COST BITES 304: IN A DISPUTED WILL CASE WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHAT SHOULD THE BASIS OF THE ORDER BE? SHOULD THERE BE AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS?

COST BITES 304: IN A DISPUTED WILL CASE WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHAT SHOULD THE BASIS OF THE ORDER BE? SHOULD THERE BE AN INTERIM ORDER FOR COSTS?

November 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Interest, Interim Payments, Members Content

There are particular rules that relate to costs in probate proceedings. Here we look at a decision on costs that is of more general interest. The judge considered the issue of whether the unsuccessful defendant should pay the costs, the…

SERVICE POINTS 16:  DID THE COURT HAVE POWER TO STATE THAT SERVICE OF A CLAIM FORM AT THE HOUSE COMMONS COULD BE RATIFIED RETROSPECTIVELY?

SERVICE POINTS 16: DID THE COURT HAVE POWER TO STATE THAT SERVICE OF A CLAIM FORM AT THE HOUSE COMMONS COULD BE RATIFIED RETROSPECTIVELY?

November 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form

We have already looked at this case at first instance, see Service Points 9,  the initial decision was considered by the Court of Appeal in the case we look at here.  The Court here was concerned with whether the courts…

COST BITES 303:  THE SOLICITOR CANNOT PASS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE BILL TO THE COSTS LAWYER: A 75% REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BILL WAS DRAFTED

COST BITES 303: THE SOLICITOR CANNOT PASS ON RESPONSIBILITY FOR A DEFECTIVE BILL TO THE COSTS LAWYER: A 75% REDUCTION BECAUSE OF THE WAY IN WHICH THE BILL WAS DRAFTED

November 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here we are looking at a case involving a bill of costs that was wholly defective that the costs judge was invited to strike it out.  The judge came very close, but reduced the bill by 75% instead.    There…

AS IT STARTS TO GET DARK: LAWYERS HALLOWEEN STORIES: DIGGING UP THE PAST...

AS IT STARTS TO GET DARK: LAWYERS HALLOWEEN STORIES: DIGGING UP THE PAST…

October 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Well being

Way back in the mists of antiquity (2017) I invited lawyers on Twitter (Now “X”) to share their views on what scares the legal profession most.  The first post came from Megan Boyd (based in Atlanta, Georgia).  This shows that…

MAZUR MATTERS 27: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: A USEFUL GUIDE FROM INSURERS:  PLUS THE FIRST "REAL WORLD" CASE WHERE MAZUR HAS LED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN COSTS

MAZUR MATTERS 27: TWO MORE USEFUL LINKS: A USEFUL GUIDE FROM INSURERS: PLUS THE FIRST “REAL WORLD” CASE WHERE MAZUR HAS LED TO A SUBSTANTIAL REDUCTION IN COSTS

October 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Sanctions, Useful links

The commentary on Mazur continues.  Here I want to look at two useful links. The first relates to guidance given by an insurer. The second relates to the first report (I have seen) on Mazur having an impact on costs….

SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT

SHOULD A DEFENDANT BE ALLOWED TO WITHDRAW ADMISSION MADE BY MISTAKE? A TEN YEAR OLD CASE THAT IS STILL OF INTEREST: CANDOUR HELPS A LOT

October 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

This is a case about mistakes in litigation and the rules relating to allowing the withdrawal of a pre-action admission.  The judgment was given 10 years ago, but arrived on BAILII today.  The issues raised here remain highly relevant.  In…

EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF...

EXPERT WATCH 22: JUST WHEN YOU THINK YOU MAY HAVE SEEN IT ALL: THE CLIENT (BASICALLY) DRAFTS THE JOINT STATEMENT: THE JUDGE THINKS THEY MAY HAVE PLAYED A LARGE PART IN THE DRAFTING OF THE REPORT ITSELF…

October 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Witness statements

No matter how long, and how much, you write about civil procedure cases can still come along which surprise – if not astonish. We have such a case here.  The judge found that, essentially, it was the client who played…

LITIGATORS: SLEEP LIKE A BABY NEXT YEAR BY NOT REPEATING ALL THE CLAIM FORM MISTAKES PEOPLE HAVE MADE THIS YEAR: WEBINAR 5th NOVEMBER 2025

LITIGATORS: SLEEP LIKE A BABY NEXT YEAR BY NOT REPEATING ALL THE CLAIM FORM MISTAKES PEOPLE HAVE MADE THIS YEAR: WEBINAR 5th NOVEMBER 2025

October 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Webinar

Needless to say there have been plenty of cases this year relating to service (or mis-service) of the claim form.  This webinar looks at cases over the past 12 months with the primary aim of ensuring that you are not…

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (3): ARE THE CPR PROVISIONS RELATING TO VULNERABILITY RELEVANT? WHOSE JOB IS IT TO CONSIDER THEM IN THIS CONTEXT?

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (3): ARE THE CPR PROVISIONS RELATING TO VULNERABILITY RELEVANT? WHOSE JOB IS IT TO CONSIDER THEM IN THIS CONTEXT?

October 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Part 36

We are looking again at the case in which the claimant applied for permission to withdraw their Part 36 offer.  The claimant had capacity, however at the hearing it was argued that he came within the definition of “vulnerable” litigant…

LIGHT IN ALL THE HEAT: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION": A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 31st OCTOBER 2025

LIGHT IN ALL THE HEAT: ENSURING THAT AN AUTHORISED PERSON HAS “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”: A PRACTICAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 31st OCTOBER 2025

October 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Webinar

There are many heated responses to the Mazur decision.  There are articles suggesting that the judge got the law wrong. (Apparently the judge should not have listened to the submissions of both the Law Society and SRA which supported his…

WHEN A RESPONDENT'S NOTICE IS REALLY A CROSS-APPEAL: SHOULD THE COURT GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ALLOW THE "APPEAL" TO BE ARGUED?

WHEN A RESPONDENT’S NOTICE IS REALLY A CROSS-APPEAL: SHOULD THE COURT GRANT AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO ALLOW THE “APPEAL” TO BE ARGUED?

October 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Sometimes a respondent’s notice is really a cross-appeal attempting to disguise itself.  We are looking at such a case here.   The “respondent’s notice” was served late, and permission was given to serve it. However on closer examination at the appeal…

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (2): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? (2): THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

October 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

We continue with the consideration of the recent case in which a claimant applied for permission to withdraw a Part 36 offer.  The judge also considered the relevant rules and case law in detail. (You need the court’s permission to…

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? IS A "CHANGE OF MIND" A "CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES": THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

SHOULD A CLAIMANT BE GIVEN PERMISSION TO WITHDRAW THEIR OWN PART 36 OFFER? IS A “CHANGE OF MIND” A “CHANGE OF CIRCUMSTANCES”: THE ISSUE CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT

October 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Part 36

There are few cases which involve a claimant seeking to withdraw their own Part 36 offer we have a decision today here.  The claimant made an offer and attempted to withdraw is shortly afterwards. The defendant accepted the offer within…

COST BITES 300: THE SERIES TO DATE:  IT STARTED WITH A "BOUTIQUE FIRM", YESTERDAY IT WAS ABOUT CONDUCT,  AND IS UNLIKELY TO END SOON...

COST BITES 300: THE SERIES TO DATE: IT STARTED WITH A “BOUTIQUE FIRM”, YESTERDAY IT WAS ABOUT CONDUCT, AND IS UNLIKELY TO END SOON…

October 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Useful links

This series started in July 2022.  I wanted to make sure that we got to look at the “smaller” issues in relation to costs as well as major decisions.  Those “incidental” issues, summary assessments, judicial commentary and the like can…

SHOULD THE COURT GIVE  ADEFENDANT  PERMISSION TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS SENT "EARLY" BUT NOT SERVED AS A TRIAL WITNESS STATEMENT?

SHOULD THE COURT GIVE ADEFENDANT PERMISSION TO RELY ON WITNESS STATEMENT THAT WAS SENT “EARLY” BUT NOT SERVED AS A TRIAL WITNESS STATEMENT?

October 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

We are looking at an application to rely on a witness statement that was served “late”.   The statement had, in fact, been served on the claimants ahead of the deadline but not served as a witness statement for trial.   When…

EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE  IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND "WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION"

EXPERT WATCH 21: THE EXPERT WHO FAILED TO CONSIDER NEW EVIDENCE IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL AND “WHO WAS NOT PARTICULARLY OPEN TO RECONSIDERING HIS OPINION”

October 21, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Personal Injury

Here we look at a judgment about medical evidence in a personal injury action. The issue was one of causation – whether an earlier injury to the claimant’s leg “caused” a later decision to have that leg amputated.  The critique…

GIVING ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: ANOTHER REMINDER OF THEIR IMPORTANCE: "PARTIES MUST BE REALISTIC AND GIVE EARLY AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS"

GIVING ACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES: ANOTHER REMINDER OF THEIR IMPORTANCE: “PARTIES MUST BE REALISTIC AND GIVE EARLY AND ACCURATE ASSESSMENTS”

October 20, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

This is not the first time this blog has looked at judicial criticisms of inadequate time estimates.  On this occasion it was in relation to unrealistic reading time.   This provides an opportunity to revisit the guidance given in relation to…

COST BITES 296: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS APPELLANTS' APPLICATION FOR A COSTS CAP: CAN THE LITIGATING TENANTS  PUSH THE COSTS RISKS ONTO THE NON-LITIGANTS?

COST BITES 296: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS APPELLANTS’ APPLICATION FOR A COSTS CAP: CAN THE LITIGATING TENANTS PUSH THE COSTS RISKS ONTO THE NON-LITIGANTS?

October 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Here we are looking at a Court of Appeal decision in relation to the costs capping on an appeal. It was common ground that the Court had the power to order a costs cap if so minded.  However the practical…

ADVOCACY IN THE CIVIL COURTS 2025: WEBINAR 23rd OCTOBER 2025

ADVOCACY IN THE CIVIL COURTS 2025: WEBINAR 23rd OCTOBER 2025

October 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Webinar, Written advocacy

Regular readers of this blog will know that I regularly take you through guides and hints to advocacy, being particularly keen on those articles and comments given by judges.  A lot of that will feature in this webinar which aims…

EXPERT WATCH 20: THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH WHEN THE PARTIES CANNOT AGREE INSTRUCTIONS TO A SINGLE JOINT EXPERT

October 17, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

Here we are looking at a case where there was an issue as to the instructions given, or to be given, to a single joint expert.  The judge set out the basis upon which such experts are instructed and the…

PART 36 CASE OF DAY (4): THE AMOUNT OF INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE?

PART 36 CASE OF DAY (4): THE AMOUNT OF INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE PERCENTAGE?

October 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content

It is now normal for a successful party to be awarded interim costs at the conclusion of a trial.  Here there is consideration of some of the issues in relation to the making of such orders. In particular the court…

PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?

PART 36 CASE OF THE DAY (3): SHOULD FAILURE TO MEDIATE PROMPTLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE COSTS ORDER?

October 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Part 36

We are continuing with our examination of the costs implications of a costs order.  Here we look at the defendant’s arguments that the claimant’s failure to respond promptly to an offer to mediate should lead to costs penalties. (The Sounds…

MAZUR MATTERS 15: COULD BREACHES OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT? WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ

MAZUR MATTERS 15: COULD BREACHES OF THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT LEAD TO AN ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT? WHY YOU SHOULDN’T BELIEVE EVERYTHING YOU READ

October 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

I have gently, perhaps too gently, suggested that a great deal of what is being written and said about the impact of Mazur is “unhelpful”.  Put more bluntly some of it is inaccurate and misleading.  There is much “wishful thinking”…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 4: THE DANGERS OF PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT (LESSONS HERE FOR ALL LITIGATORS)

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CORNER 4: THE DANGERS OF PLEADING ALLEGATIONS OF NEGLIGENCE WITHOUT APPROPRIATE EXPERT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT (LESSONS HERE FOR ALL LITIGATORS)

October 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Statements of Case, Wasted Costs

There have been several cases dealing with inadequate pleading in clinical negligence cases this year. Here we look at one of them.  It is a case we have looked at already but I wanted to emphasise the point.  Further this…

MAZUR MATTERS 13: WHAT IS MEAN BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 4: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN "IN THE ROUND"

MAZUR MATTERS 13: WHAT IS MEAN BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 4: THE COURT SHOULD LOOK AT THE ENTIRETY OF ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN “IN THE ROUND”

October 10, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

The decision Mazur continues to attract considerable comment, for good reason.   Here we consider the question of how the courts approach the issue. (13 may be lucky for some. Just remember the court considers the position “in the round”).  …

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE UNDER SCRUTINY, ADMISSIBILITY AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED: "THE PROVIDING OF PATENTLY UNTRUE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE COURT, ENDORSED WITH STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, IS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO THE COURT"

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE UNDER SCRUTINY, ADMISSIBILITY AND CONDUCT CONSIDERED: “THE PROVIDING OF PATENTLY UNTRUE WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE COURT, ENDORSED WITH STATEMENTS OF TRUTH, IS A MATTER OF SERIOUS CONCERN TO THE COURT”

October 9, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

This is the most  serious criticism of surveillance operatives as I have seen.  The judge found that the operatives, filming on behalf of a defendant for the purpose of litigation,  had been “fundamental and repeated” errors. The operatives then put…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025

WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025

October 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Webinar, Witness statements

On a regular basis on this blog we see cases where judges have been highly critical of the witness statements used at trials or hearings.  This criticism is not a rare event and is usually justified. Many witness statements are…

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 … 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: “NEARLY LEGAL” – AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE LAW AND PRACTICE: WEBINAR 24th APRIL 2026
  • EXPERT WATCH 43: WHEN AN EXPERT DOESN’T HAVE “REAL WORLD” EXPERIENCE OF THE MATTERS IN THEIR REPORT – THEY START ON THE BACK FOOT…
  • COSTS BITES 377: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT’S REFUSAL TO MEDIATE LEAD TO IT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS?

Top Posts

  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: "NEARLY LEGAL" - AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
  • THERE MAY BE A LOT OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING A PARTY: HOWEVER THE CLAIM WAS STILL PRESENTED IN AN "UNFOCUSED" MANNER: A "MOVEABLE FEAST" IS NOT A WISE WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?
  • COSTS BITES 377: SHOULD A SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT'S REFUSAL TO MEDIATE LEAD TO IT LOSING ITS RIGHT TO RECOVER COSTS?

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.