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 7
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…

SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT  SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW...

SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…

October 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Over the years many claimants have been “rescued” by  a defendant’s failure to make a timely, or correct, application to dispute the jurisdiction when the claim form has been improperly served.   The limits of the defendant’s obligations were considered by…

MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE "CONDUCT OF LITIGATION"?  (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS

MAZUR MATTERS 9: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (2): AN EARLY COURT OF APPEAL DECISION WHICH HELPS

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

We are continuing with a detailed examination of the cases and principles relating to what is meant by the “conduct of litigation”.  Here (with some major caveats in mind) we look at the Court of Appeal decision that has been…

PART 36: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT SEEK CLARIFICATION OF THE OFFER – ITS TERMS WERE CLEAR AND WERE EFFECTIVE

October 6, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

Here we consider a case where a defendant argued that the term of a claimant’s Part 36 offer was not clear and the offer was not, therefore, valid.  The defendant had not sought clarification of the offer. (Unluckily for the…

MAZUR MATTERS 4:  DOES MAZUR COVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS?  THREE CASES THAT CONSIDER THE ISSUE

MAZUR MATTERS 4: DOES MAZUR COVER ANYTHING PRIOR TO THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS? THREE CASES THAT CONSIDER THE ISSUE

October 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB). Here we consider the issue relating to…

COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT

COST BITES 293: AN EXAMPLE OF AN ASSESSMENT OF A SUMMARY ASSESSMENT (AND COSTS BEING REDUCED) WHEN THE OPPOSING PARTY WAS NOT PRESENT

September 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Summary assessment,

The periodical reminder that this series is aimed at looking at what goes on “on the ground” in the world of costs, in addition to looking at important developments in case law.  It is to allow litigators to gain “a…

MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW "PONDERING" WHAT TO DO...

MAZUR MATTERS 2: THE ROLE OF THE SOLICITORS REGULATORY AUTHORITY : THE REGULATOR THAT GOT THE LAW WRONG AND IS NOW “PONDERING” WHAT TO DO…

September 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The webinar on Friday the 3rd October will deal with many of the major issues that arise from the the decision in Mazur & Anor v Charles Russell Speechlys LLP [2025] EWHC 2341 (KB).  One interesting aspect of the case is…

EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT "PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY" BY THE COURT

EXPERT WATCH 15: A CHANGE OF APPROACH BY EXPERTS (WHICH FAVOURED THE SIDE THAT INSTRUCTED THEM) HAS TO BE LOOKED AT “PARTICULARLY CRITICALLY” BY THE COURT

September 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

We are looking at a case where expert evidence was of considerable importance.  The claimants had already had permission to rely upon one of their experts disallowed because of issues relating to conduct.  Here we have an example of the…

WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN "ISSUED" ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT'S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)

WHEN CPR 3.10 CAN HELP: PROCEEDINGS HAD BEEN “ISSUED” ALBEIT IMPERFECTLY AND THE SITUATION COULD BE REMEDIED (TO THE CLAIMANT’S DETERIMENT IN THIS CASE)

September 26, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I have written before about the “heavy lifting” that sometimes takes place when practitioners attempt to invoke  CPR 3.10. Here we look at a case where CPR 3.10 was used to condemn a claimant who had used the wrong procedure…

UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK

UPDATED VERSION OF THE CHANCERY GUIDE: A USEFUL LINK

September 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The Chancery Guide was updated earlier this month.  Here we look at the Practice Note and have a link to the updated Guide itself. FINDING THE LINK The Practice Note that accompanies it gives a link to the Guide itself…

COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID - FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL'S FEES IN THE EQUATION...

COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…

September 16, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content

We are continuing with our consideration of  Damages-Based Agreements that were found to be unlawful.  This time the judge considered the position in relation to counsel’s fees and the Regulations.  The judge held that the attempt to charge counsel’s fees…

THREE WEBINARS ON EXPERTS: THE JOINT EXPERT AND MEETING OF EXPERTS; PART 35 QUESTIONS AND EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025

THREE WEBINARS ON EXPERTS: THE JOINT EXPERT AND MEETING OF EXPERTS; PART 35 QUESTIONS AND EXPERTS IN THE COURTS IN 2025

September 15, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Webinar

The way in which the “Expert Watch” series has quickly developed shows that issues relating to expert evidence continue to give rise to problems.  These three webinars explore many of the major issues in relation to experts. Dealing with the…

WITNESSES WHO GIVE THE COURT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR "OPINION": I'M NOT SAYING IT LED DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT LOSING THIS CASE - BUT IT DID NOT HELP...

WITNESSES WHO GIVE THE COURT THE BENEFIT OF THEIR “OPINION”: I’M NOT SAYING IT LED DIRECTLY TO THE APPLICANT LOSING THIS CASE – BUT IT DID NOT HELP…

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

There appears to be no end to the practice of witnesses giving the court the benefit of their opinion in witness statements. There have been numerous cases where the judiciary have warned against this.  The white book has a specific…

COST BITES 282: PROPORTIONALITY OF COSTS CONSIDERED AFTER A LINE BY LINE ASSESSMENT: TAKE YOUR SEATS FOR A CASE ABOUT THE ALBERT HALL...

COST BITES 282: PROPORTIONALITY OF COSTS CONSIDERED AFTER A LINE BY LINE ASSESSMENT: TAKE YOUR SEATS FOR A CASE ABOUT THE ALBERT HALL…

September 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

I am grateful to my colleague Paul Hughes for bringing my attention to this decision of the SCCO in relation to proportionality. It is a case where the paying party specifically raised proportionality as a further  and specific issue after…

MEMBER NEWS: "ON DEMAND" CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS AVAILABLE TO WATCH AT A TIME AND PLACE TO SUIT YOU: WITH DISCOUNTS FOR CLB MEMBERS

MEMBER NEWS: “ON DEMAND” CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF WEBINARS AVAILABLE TO WATCH AT A TIME AND PLACE TO SUIT YOU: WITH DISCOUNTS FOR CLB MEMBERS

September 3, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Webinar, Witness statements

Last week we looked at webinars coming up which may be of interest to CLB readers.  CLB members can obtain a discount on these webinars.  The same discount applies to webinars which are now available “on demand”.  These webinars are…

DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO CHALLENGE COSTS PROVISIONS REFUSED: 21 DAYS WAS A SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT BREACH AND THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR IT

DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME TO CHALLENGE COSTS PROVISIONS REFUSED: 21 DAYS WAS A SERIOUS AND SIGNIFICANT BREACH AND THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR IT

September 2, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Here we are looking at a case where the court refused the defendant’s application to extend time when the defendant wanted to challenge the argument that costs were capped.  It was held that the defendant’s delay of 21 days was…

SERVICE POINTS 5: CLAIMANTS IN £22 MILLION CLAIM FAIL ON SERVICE ISSUES - FOR THE THIRD TIME: ORDERS GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME SET ASIDE

SERVICE POINTS 5: CLAIMANTS IN £22 MILLION CLAIM FAIL ON SERVICE ISSUES – FOR THE THIRD TIME: ORDERS GRANTING EXTENSIONS OF TIME SET ASIDE

September 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form

Here we look at a case where the claimants came to grief on issues relating to service – extensions of time for service  of the claim form were set aside.  One remarkable feature of this litigation is that this was…

APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: WHAT IS MEANT BY "PROMPT"? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY THE HIGH COURT

APPLYING TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: WHAT IS MEANT BY “PROMPT”? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL BY THE HIGH COURT

August 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment

When a court considers setting aside a regular default judgment it must have regard to whether the application was made “promptly”.  There is a consideration of that issue in the case we consider here.  There had been some delay in…

ANONYMITY AND REPORTING RESTRICTIONS IN CIVIL CASES (2): THE PROCESS THAT JUDGE'S SHOULD FOLLOW WHEN CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES

ANONYMITY AND REPORTING RESTRICTIONS IN CIVIL CASES (2): THE PROCESS THAT JUDGE’S SHOULD FOLLOW WHEN CONSIDERING THESE ISSUES

August 29, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Personal Injury

The previous post looked at the Court of Appeal decision yesterday in relation to applications for anonymity in civil cases.  Here we take a close look at the factors that the courts have to consider when an application for anonymity…

ANOTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT COURT BUNDLES: "IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE..."

ANOTHER COMPLAINT ABOUT COURT BUNDLES: “IT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DIFFICULT TO PROMOTE THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE…”

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

It is getting to the stage that I am concerned about receiving complaints from readers if this blog does not have a regular feature on bundles.  In fact we have not looked at a case since June, so we are…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 31: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT TO TAKE A "PLEADING POINT", HOWEVER THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 31: THE DEFENDANT DID NOT WANT TO TAKE A “PLEADING POINT”, HOWEVER THE JUDGE REFUSED TO ALLOW THE CLAIMANT TO PURSUE THE ISSUE

August 28, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

We are looking at a case where a claimant, in closing submissions, attempted to take a point that had never been pleaded.  The defendants stance was that it did not want to take a “pleading point”, however the judge found…

APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS DECISION NOT TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO RELY ON DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL: DENTON CONSIDERED AND APPLIED

APPEAL COURT UPHOLDS DECISION NOT TO ALLOW DEFENDANT TO RELY ON DOCUMENTS PRODUCED FOR THE FIRST TIME AT TRIAL: DENTON CONSIDERED AND APPLIED

August 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

We are looking at a decision newly arrived on BAILII in relation to disclosure and relief from sanctions.  A defendant brought (potentially significant) documents to trial which had never been disclosed before. The trial judge did not permit the defendant…

WHEN HAS A PARTY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL?  IS A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONSENT IN ADVANCE FATAL TO VALID SERVICE?

WHEN HAS A PARTY CONSENTED TO SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY EMAIL? IS A FAILURE TO OBTAIN SPECIFIC CONSENT IN ADVANCE FATAL TO VALID SERVICE?

August 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Serving documents

We are carrying on with the review of the appeal judgment that considered key issues in relation to service by electronic means.  Here the judge considered whether the claimant’s failure to obtain the defendant’s specific consent prior to service rendered…

A FASCINATING AND IMPORTANT JUDGMENT:  WHEN CAN A NOTICE BE SERVED BY EMAIL? AT WHAT TIME CAN IT BE SERVED? ALSO - SOMETHING ABOUT NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE AND QOCS

A FASCINATING AND IMPORTANT JUDGMENT: WHEN CAN A NOTICE BE SERVED BY EMAIL? AT WHAT TIME CAN IT BE SERVED? ALSO – SOMETHING ABOUT NOTICES OF DISCONTINUANCE AND QOCS

August 22, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, QOCS, Serving documents, Uncategorized

I have been sent a case that is important and interesting on many levels.  Firstly in relation to when it is permissible to serve documents by email; secondly in relation to the latest time in the working day that documents…

← Previous 1 … 6 7 8 … 29 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

  • PROVING THINGS 292: CLAIMANT ORDERED TO PROVIDE SECURITY FOR COSTS: NO “HUMAN SOURCE” FOR THE MATERIAL PROVIDED: THE IMPORTANCE OF GIVING THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • THE KEY CASES IN FATAL ACCIDENT DAMAGES 2026: WEBINAR ON THE 24th JUNE 2026
  • GETTING TO GRIPS WITH TIME ESTIMATES: THE KEY POINTS AND SOME USEFUL POINTERS AND CHECKLISTS: AVOIDING YOUR ESTIMATE BEING CALLED “ABSURD”
  • COST BITES 403: JUDGMENT TODAY: SUCCESS FEE AND ATE PREMIUM NOT PAYABLE BY CLIENT WHEN THE SOLICITOR FAILED TO MAKE REASONABLE ENQUIRIES ABOUT BTE INSURANCE
  • THE VEXED ISSUE OF TIME ESTIMATES (AND VOLUMINOUS BUNDLES) AGAIN: IF YOU ARE GOING TO “JUMP THE QUEUE” THEN THERE IS A DUTY ON BOTH PARTIES TO PRESENT A CASE THAT CAN BE HEARD IN THE TIME GIVEN

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.