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
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOP RIGHT HAND CORNER OF ANY WITNESS STATEMENT OR AFFIDAVIT

March 2, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Here we are looking at one of the basic rules for witness statements. Curiously it is ignored in about 40 – 50% of the statements I see in practice.  Often the oversight is ignored.  Some judges take a hard line….

EXPERT WATCH 39: BOTH EXPERTS "ACTED AS SURROGATE ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF THEIR INSTRUCTING PARTY": MORE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT...

EXPERT WATCH 39: BOTH EXPERTS “ACTED AS SURROGATE ADVOCATES ON BEHALF OF THEIR INSTRUCTING PARTY”: MORE LESSONS TO BE LEARNT…

February 27, 2026 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We have another High Court decision where the judge was highly critical of the approach of each expert.  The judge found that each took on the role of advocate rather than expert.   The criticisms are stark “they were similar in…

WEBINAR ON PART 36: NOW AVAILABLE "ON DEMAND": WATCH IT WHEN AND WHERE YOU WANT...

WEBINAR ON PART 36: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”: WATCH IT WHEN AND WHERE YOU WANT…

February 27, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36, Webinar

I have had some enquiries about whether  the webinar given today on Recent Developments in Part 36 is available this webinar is available “on demand. It is now available – the details are available here.   (The CLB Member discount…

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PART 36 FIXED COSTS AND LATE ACCEPTANCE HEARD - DECISION PENDING (PLUS A FINAL PLUG FOR THE WEBINAR ON PART 36 ON THE 26th FEBRUARY 2026)

COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON PART 36 FIXED COSTS AND LATE ACCEPTANCE HEARD – DECISION PENDING (PLUS A FINAL PLUG FOR THE WEBINAR ON PART 36 ON THE 26th FEBRUARY 2026)

February 25, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Part 36

The Court of Appeal has heard an appeal against the decision in Laura Attersley v UK Insurance Limited [2025] EWHC 884 (KB).   This is an interesting decision on Part 36.  I understand that judgment is pending.  This was one of many…

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A WITNESS STATEMENT "MADE UP OF SUBMISSIONS OR COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENTS RATHER THAN EVIDENCE"

WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: A WITNESS STATEMENT “MADE UP OF SUBMISSIONS OR COMMENTARY ON DOCUMENTS RATHER THAN EVIDENCE”

February 25, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

There are numerous warnings and strictures about not putting submissions, commentary and opinion in witness statements.  More than one observer has commented that these rules are routinely ignored.   We have examples of this here.  We also have an example of…

MAZUR MATTERS 50: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM: GETTING READY FOR THE APPEAL THIS AFTERNOON: BUT IF YOU WANT TO WATCH - YOU HAVE TO ASK...

MAZUR MATTERS 50: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM: GETTING READY FOR THE APPEAL THIS AFTERNOON: BUT IF YOU WANT TO WATCH – YOU HAVE TO ASK…

February 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The appeal in the decision of Mazur -v- Charles Russell Speechlys LLP begins at 2.00 today, it continues on Wednesday and Thursday.  It is not being live streamed (To be fair I have  been sent a link – the Court…

PART 36 ISSUES: CAN A JUDGE CONSIDER INTEREST UNDER PART 36 WHEN INTEREST HAD BEEN AN ISSUE DETERMINED IN THE ACTION? [SPOILER - YES THEY CAN]

PART 36 ISSUES: CAN A JUDGE CONSIDER INTEREST UNDER PART 36 WHEN INTEREST HAD BEEN AN ISSUE DETERMINED IN THE ACTION? [SPOILER – YES THEY CAN]

February 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

The judgment here considers an interesting point in relation to Part 36.  The judge had, in the substantive judgment, considered issues relating to the interest to be paid by the defendant.  The defendant had failed to beat a Part 36…

FATAL ACCIDENTS WEBINAR SERIES 2026: ADVANCE NOTICE : JUNE - JULY 2026: BASIC PRINCIPLES AND SOME INTERESTING NEW DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED

FATAL ACCIDENTS WEBINAR SERIES 2026: ADVANCE NOTICE : JUNE – JULY 2026: BASIC PRINCIPLES AND SOME INTERESTING NEW DEVELOPMENTS CONSIDERED

February 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Damages, Fatal Accidents, Webinar

The recent High Court decision in Denning v Stone [2025] EWHC 3517 (KB) is a powerful reminder of the very particular nature of fatal accident damages. Although the deceased’s farm was not making a profit, the court awarded £377,577 to…

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN WHEN A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNS THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: A STARK REMINDER

BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN WHEN A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE SIGNS THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: A STARK REMINDER

February 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth

There are major dangers when a lawyer signs a statement of truth on behalf of their client. I had actually planned a post on this issue before seeing the judgment last week which features below..  For many years this site…

MORE DECISIONS ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND "HALLUCINATED" CASES: THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IS FAR FROM HAPPY: LEGAL PROFESSIONALS WHO DELEGATE THEIR WORK REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ITS ACCURACY

MORE DECISIONS ABOUT ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND “HALLUCINATED” CASES: THE UPPER TRIBUNAL IS FAR FROM HAPPY: LEGAL PROFESSIONALS WHO DELEGATE THEIR WORK REMAIN RESPONSIBLE FOR ENSURING ITS ACCURACY

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

As I’ve said before the hallucinated cases just keep on coming. The issues were considered by the Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) here.  There are important points about the need to supervise staff who undertake legal research. It is…

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…

← Previous 1 … 4 5 6 … 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

  • COST BITES 423: THE JUDGE’S EYEBROWS ARE RAISED AT AN ADDITIONAL £2,500 BECAUSE THE KC HAS TO STAY FOR THE AFTERNOON…
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 4: THE COURT SETS ASIDE A MENTAL HEALTH CRISIS MORATORIA AND ALLOWS BANKRUPTCY PROCEEDINGS TO CONTINUE
  • COST BITES 422: THE ORDER FOR INTERIM COSTS IN THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE : THE JUDGE WAS UNIMPRESSED WITH CLAIMANT’S “WEAK ARGUMENTS TO BOLSTER HIS ALREADY WEAK COSTS SUBMISSIONS”
  • COST BITES 421 : THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE IS BACK IN COURT: CLAIMANT’S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT OF A CASE WHERE HE LOST “ON EVERY MATERIAL POINT OF FACT AND LAW” LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
  • SERVICE POINTS 51: HIGH COURT REFUSES TO SET ASIDE AN ORDER ALLOWING SERVICE BY EMAIL ON THE DEFENDANT’S SOLICITORS

Top Posts

COST BITES 419: HOW CLAIMING COUNSEL'S FEES ON AN N260 CAN LEAD TO REFERRAL TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT PROCEEDINGS TO BE CONSIDERED: SIGNATORY BEWARE
LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT...) AND THE COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS "WHAT IS A TRIAL?": THE DEFINITION PROVES TO BE VERY IMPORTANT FOR THIS APPELLANT...
COST BITES 421 : THE AMY WINEHOUSE CASE IS BACK IN COURT: CLAIMANT'S AGGRESSIVE CONDUCT OF A CASE WHERE HE LOST "ON EVERY MATERIAL POINT OF FACT AND LAW" LEADS TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS TO PAY COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
MAZUR MATTERS 66: THE LEGAL SERVICES BOARD FINAL REPORT ON MAZUR: "REGULATORY REVIEW OF ADVICE AND GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE PROFESSION ON THE CONDUCT OF LITIGAITON BY APPROVED REGULATORS AND REGULATORY BODIES"
EXPERT WATCH 63: WHEN A DOCTOR WRITES TO THE COURT AND THE JUDGE FINDS THE INFORMATION "UNRELIABLE"

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.