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 » Page 17
FAILURE TO PAY CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN LODGING PROCEEDINGS AT COURT MEANS ACTION BITES THE DUST: CPR 3.9 AND 3.10 CANNOT HELP

FAILURE TO PAY CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN LODGING PROCEEDINGS AT COURT MEANS ACTION BITES THE DUST: CPR 3.9 AND 3.10 CANNOT HELP

May 5, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Court fees, Members Content

In  Peterson & Anor v Howard De Walden Estates Ltd [2023] EWHC 929 (KB) the unfortunate claimant failed to fail the correct fee. The court declined to issue proceedings.  Consequently the claim was out of time Mr Justice Eyre held…

ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE TO BRIGHTEN UP YOUR DAY: SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN HIS ARGUMENTS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE

ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE TO BRIGHTEN UP YOUR DAY: SERVICE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS: CLAIMANT SUCCESSFUL IN HIS ARGUMENTS ABOUT KNOWLEDGE

May 3, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form

There are a number of issues relating to service of the claim form in the judgment of Peter MacDonald Eggers KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Boettcher v (Xio (UK) LLP & Ors [2023] EWHC 801 (Comm). Here…

CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE WITH THIRD SET OF PROCEEDINGS REFUSED: CPR 38.7 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE WITH THIRD SET OF PROCEEDINGS REFUSED: CPR 38.7 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

May 2, 2023 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Danielewicz v Cannon & Anor [2023] EWHC 948 (KB) Master Thornett refused the claimant’s application for an order under CPR 38.7.  The claimant had issued proceedings twice before, but discontinued those actions.  The judgment contains a detailed consideration of…

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 25th APRIL 2023

WHAT TO DO WHEN THINGS GO WRONG IN LITIGATION: WEBINAR 25th APRIL 2023

April 18, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Webinar, Well being

This blog spends a lot of time looking at cases where things have gone wrong, for one reason and another.  This webinar on the 25th April 2023 looks at the main problem areas in litigation and the practical steps that…

LITIGANTS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER CANNOT ISSUE VALID PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE COURT: "RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION" HAD NO EFFECT: ACTION WAS A NULLITY

LITIGANTS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER CANNOT ISSUE VALID PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE COURT: “RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION” HAD NO EFFECT: ACTION WAS A NULLITY

April 10, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Williamson v The Bishop of London & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 379 the Court of Appeal held that a person subject to a Civil Proceedings Order must obtain permission from the High Court so they could issue valid proceedings. …

PART 36 RULES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: WAS THE OFFER MADE IN TIME?  WAS THE OFFER VALID? WHEN DOES A TRIAL "START"?  WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?

PART 36 RULES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL: WAS THE OFFER MADE IN TIME? WAS THE OFFER VALID? WHEN DOES A TRIAL “START”? WAS IT UNJUST FOR THE NORMAL CONSEQUENCES TO APPLY?

April 6, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36

The judgment of Andrew Sutcliffe KC, sitting as a High Court Judge, in Mate v Mate & Ors [2023] EWHC 806 (Ch) involves a consideration of several issues in relation to Part 36.  The judge decided that a Part 36…

INSURER FAILED IN PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE APPLICATION: BUT... IF THE RIGHT PARTY HAD BROUGHT THE APPLICATION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED

INSURER FAILED IN PRE-ACTION DISCLOSURE APPLICATION: BUT… IF THE RIGHT PARTY HAD BROUGHT THE APPLICATION IT WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED

April 5, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Baker in Holt v Allianz Insurance Plc [2023] EWHC 790 (KB) is another round in a long running battle between car hire companies and insurers.  Whilst the insurer may have lost this round it is…

PROVING THINGS 252: THE SOLICITORS WERE NEGLIGENT BUT THERE WAS NO LOSS: CLAIM DISMISSED

PROVING THINGS 252: THE SOLICITORS WERE NEGLIGENT BUT THERE WAS NO LOSS: CLAIM DISMISSED

April 4, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Risks of litigation

Many a salutary lesson can be learnt from the judgment of Mrs Justice Bacon in Cutlers Holdings Ltd & Anor v Shepherd And Wedderburn LLP [2023] EWHC 720 (Ch). It was a case about negligence in the conduct of litigation….

FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT PROPERLY AND ISSUING OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION

FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT PROPERLY AND ISSUING OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION

April 3, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

In Muhammad v Daily The News International & Ors (Rev1) [2023] EWHC 674 (KB) Master Cook determined a number of procedural issues.  Here we look at two: (1) the failure to serve on a defendant properly; (2) the question of…

HEARING AND TRIAL BUNDLES: ARE THE COSTS OF PREPARATION RECOVERABLE? WELL, YES THEY ARE (IN PART)

HEARING AND TRIAL BUNDLES: ARE THE COSTS OF PREPARATION RECOVERABLE? WELL, YES THEY ARE (IN PART)

March 29, 2023 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Bundles, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

There was some discussion on Twitter earlier this evening as to whether the cost of preparing bundles is recoverable at all.  Since we have not had a case featuring a judicial complaint about bundles for several months*  and “bundle cases”…

MAKE UNJUSTIFIED ALLEGATIONS IN A LETTER OF CLAIM AT YOUR PERIL - YOU CAN PAY THE COSTS: ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS

MAKE UNJUSTIFIED ALLEGATIONS IN A LETTER OF CLAIM AT YOUR PERIL – YOU CAN PAY THE COSTS: ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS

March 28, 2023 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Deputy Master Nurse in Stubbins Marketing Ltd & Ors v Rayner Essex LLP & Anor [2023] EWHC 515 (Ch) contains an important lesson for anyone drafting a letter of claim. The judge ordered that the claimants pay…

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE: THE ESSENTIAL POINT THAT THEY MUST BE IN WRITING

AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME FOR SERVICE: THE ESSENTIAL POINT THAT THEY MUST BE IN WRITING

March 28, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

An interesting issue about “agreements” is referred to in the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in  Clarion Housing Association Ltd v Crest Nicholson Operations Ltd [2023] EWHC 620 (TCC). I will be looking at the case in more detail later. …

A LITIGANT CAN "APPEAR" AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

A LITIGANT CAN “APPEAR” AT A SMALL CLAIMS TRACK HEARING BY THEIR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

March 27, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Owen v Black Horse Ltd [2023] EWCA Civ 325 the Court of Appeal allowed the claimant’s appeal.   The claim had been struck out at the start of a Small Claims Track hearing on the grounds that attendance by the…

CROWING OVER COSTS IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR A LITIGANT: A REMINDER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

CROWING OVER COSTS IS NOT A GOOD LOOK FOR A LITIGANT: A REMINDER OF THE IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL MEDIA

March 22, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content

We are looking again at the judgment  of Lord Justice Underhill in Credico Marketing Ltd & Anor v Lambert & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 262.   There is a very brief passage which serves as a reminder that clients can expect…

MISTAKES AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIED: A WORKING EXAMPLE

MISTAKES AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIED: A WORKING EXAMPLE

March 14, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Doyle -v- the NFU (St Helens County Court 24th February 2023) Deputy District Judge Murray held that the doctrine of mistake applied to offers made on the Pre-Action Protocol for road traffic accidents. I am grateful to solicitor Jamil…

COST BITES 60: THE COURT WOULD NOT RETROSPECTIVELY REALLOCATE A CASE TO THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK:

COST BITES 60: THE COURT WOULD NOT RETROSPECTIVELY REALLOCATE A CASE TO THE SMALL CLAIMS TRACK:

March 7, 2023 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Craig Leigh for sending me copies of two judgments of Recorder David Allen K.C. in the case of Johnson -v- GE Money Secured Loans Ltd.  The second judgment in relation to costs contains a decision on…

RULE CHANGES IN APRIL 2023: UP TO £100,000 CAN BE PAID INTO COURT FOR A PROTECTED BENEFICIARY

RULE CHANGES IN APRIL 2023: UP TO £100,000 CAN BE PAID INTO COURT FOR A PROTECTED BENEFICIARY

February 28, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Rule Changes

Another change coming into force on the 6th April is an increase, to £100,000, that the court can order be paid into court for a protected beneficiary.  This is, quite specifically, aimed to reduce the number of cases that come…

UPDATED VERSION OF THE DENTON RESOURCE: "A BUMPER CROP OF PROCEDURAL ERRORS"

UPDATED VERSION OF THE DENTON RESOURCE: “A BUMPER CROP OF PROCEDURAL ERRORS”

February 27, 2023 · by gexall · in Members Content, Professional negligence,, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

The Sanctions Case Watch section of this blog has, for many years, included a link to the Denton Resource.  A new edition of the Resource was published on the 7th February 2023 and it can be found  here.   THE DENTON…

A COURT CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ONCE IT HAS GIVEN UNCONDITIONAL PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE DEADWEIGHT OF THE FINALITY PRINCIPLE PREVAILS

A COURT CANNOT IMPOSE CONDITIONS ONCE IT HAS GIVEN UNCONDITIONAL PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE DEADWEIGHT OF THE FINALITY PRINCIPLE PREVAILS

February 21, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In National Iranian Oil Company v Crescent Petroleum Company International Limited & Anor [2023] EWHC 300 (Comm) Mr Justice Butcher refused an application for permission to appeal to be subject to a condition of payment into court. The court had…

VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: THE VULNERABLE WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE:

VULNERABLE WITNESSES IN THE CIVIL COURTS: THE VULNERABLE WITNESS SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SHOWN CROSS EXAMINATION QUESTIONS IN ADVANCE:

February 20, 2023 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are relatively few cases relating to vulnerable witnesses in civil courts. In GKE v Gunning [2023] EWHC 332 (KB)  Mr Justice Ritchie considered the terms of an order made to protect a vulnerable witness.  Although the wording of the…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: RECOURSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO NO AVAIL

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED FOLLOWING LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: RECOURSE TO HUMAN RIGHTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO NO AVAIL

February 16, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Witness statements

In Bank of Scotland Plc v Hoskins [2023] EWHC 306 (Ch) HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused an application for relief from sanctions following late service of witness evidence.   The Defendant’s attempt to invoke Human Rights…

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR RETROSPECTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM:CLAIMANT'S ARGUMENTS THAT CPR 3.9 APPLIED FAILED TO FLY

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR RETROSPECTIVE EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE THE CLAIM FORM:CLAIMANT’S ARGUMENTS THAT CPR 3.9 APPLIED FAILED TO FLY

February 8, 2023 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Regular readers may be concerned that we have got through to the second week of February of the year and we have not yet had a claims form case.  (There are several in the pipeline.)  I am grateful to  barrister…

DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT "WAREHOUSING" AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY

DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT “WAREHOUSING” AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY

February 2, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Striking out

There are several significant aspects to the judgment of Mr Justice Eyre in Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 166 (TCC). Firstly the distinction between proceedings issued for the…

"INTERROGATION" OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

“INTERROGATION” OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS EXCESSIVE: COURT OF APPEAL JUDGMENT TODAY

January 26, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We have seen many cases relating to issues arising following the sending out of draft judgments.  Another example can be viewed in the Court of Appeal judgment today in C & Ors, Re (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2023] EWCA Civ 38…

COST BITES 49: ARE THE COSTS OF A MEDICAL AGENCY RECOVERABLE IN THE FIXED COSTS REGIME? DISTRICT JUDGE FINDS THAT THEY ARE

January 25, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, Court fees, Experts, Fixed Costs, Members Content

Are the costs of a medical agency recoverable under the fixed costs regime? I am grateful to barrister John Meehan for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Phillips in Wilkinson-Mulvaney -v- UK Insurance Ltd (19th January…

MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: AN APPLICATION THAT PROVED COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANT

MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: AN APPLICATION THAT PROVED COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANT

January 24, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

I am grateful to Express Solicitors  for sending me a report of a decision in Oxford County Court relating to the Damages Claim Portal. The claimant had used the Portal to issue against the Crown.  The Portal cannot be used…

WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU IN LAW SCHOOL: A REPRISE : EARLY MORNING STARTS AND LEGAL CHEEK STARTED A SERIES

January 13, 2023 · by gexall · in Members Content, Useful links, Well being

Back in the dim and distant days of 2017 I wrote a series “What they don’t teach you at law school”.  The series also got a lot of input from other lawyers.  This seems a good time to reprise the…

COMMENTING ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT - WHEN THE JUDGE HAS ASKED YOU TO: THE CIRCULATION OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LITIGATION BUT THE BEGINNING OF THE END

COMMENTING ON A DRAFT JUDGMENT – WHEN THE JUDGE HAS ASKED YOU TO: THE CIRCULATION OF A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS NOT THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF THE LITIGATION BUT THE BEGINNING OF THE END

January 13, 2023 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Uncategorized

There have been several cases over the years where judges have commented on the practice of parties attempting to rewrite draft judgments. In Energy Works (Hull) Ltd v MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 3275 (TCC)…

COST BITES 45: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION THAT CASE INVOLVING A CHILD BE BUDGETED: ACCEPTS CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS - BUT NOT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED

COST BITES 45: COURT REJECTS DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION THAT CASE INVOLVING A CHILD BE BUDGETED: ACCEPTS CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON COSTS – BUT NOT THE AMOUNT CLAIMED

January 12, 2023 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Interim Payments, Members Content, Personal Injury

In CXS v Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust [2023] EWHC 14 (KB) Master Cook considered issues relating to costs in a case concerning a child where the matter is unlikely to be resolved for many years.  The Master rejected…

PROVING THINGS 245: DEFENDANTS FLOORED: THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCLOSURE GIVEN INADVERTENTLY "ON THIS QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME FROM THE DEFENDANTS IS LIMITED AND UNSATISFACTORY"

PROVING THINGS 245: DEFENDANTS FLOORED: THEY FAILED TO ESTABLISH THAT DISCLOSURE GIVEN INADVERTENTLY “ON THIS QUESTION, THE EVIDENCE BEFORE ME FROM THE DEFENDANTS IS LIMITED AND UNSATISFACTORY”

January 12, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Witness statements

In Flowcrete UK Ltd & Ors v Vebro Polymers UK Ltd & Ors [2023] EWHC 22 (Comm) Mr Nigel Cooper KC (sitting as a High Court Judge) refused the defendants’ application to prevent the claimant from using certain documents that…

COST BITES 44: THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF CONDUCT, ARE PART 36 OFFERS SIGNIFICANT?

COST BITES 44: THE COSTS OF ASSESSMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF CONDUCT, ARE PART 36 OFFERS SIGNIFICANT?

January 11, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

We are returning to the judgment of Mrs Justice Stacey in TRX v Southampton Football Club [2022] EWHC 3392 (KB).  The judge made some observations in relation to the costs of the assessment process.  In particular the interplay of CPR 47.20…

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

HOW TO CALCULATE TIME IN THE CIVIL PROCEDURE RULES

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Periodically I write reminders of the importance of being able to calculate time periods correctly. Sometime a miscalculation can lead to fundamental problems. AN EXAMPLE OF MISCALCULATION In Evans v Pinsent Masons LLP [2019] EWHC 2150 (QB) Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturned…

"KAFKAESQUE" PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A "TANGLE" AND A "MUDDLE"

“KAFKAESQUE” PROCEDURAL ISSUE RESOLVED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL: A “TANGLE” AND A “MUDDLE”

August 5, 2022 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Anwer v Central Bridging Loans Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 201 the Court of Appeal resolved procedural issues which it described as a “muddle” and “kafkaesque”.  The issue was a simple one of whether a litigant was entitled to transcripts…

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PERSUADING THE JUDGE TO CHANGE THEIR MIND AFTER JUDGMENT CAN BE AN EXPENSIVE STEP: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We have looked, many times, at issues relating to procedure after the handing down of a draft judgment. The Court of Appeal judgment in George v Cannell & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 1067 highlights one of the difficulties that arise. …

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS "FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS"

APPLICATION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE REFUSED: THE RULES WERE NOT FOLLOWED AND THE REPORT WAS “FAR BELOW THE STANDARD OF ANALYSIS THAT THIS COURT IS ENTITLED TO EXPECT FROM AN EXPERT WITNESS”

July 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Coronavirus, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In North Yorkshire Clinical Commissioning Group v E (Covid Vaccination) (Rev1) [2022] EWCOP 15 Mr Justice Poole disallowed an application by a respondent in relation to expert evidence.  The expert had been instructed without compliance with the procedural rules in…

TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES ... AND YOU'RE OUT

TOO MANY CLAIMANTS SPOIL THE CLAIM FORM: THREE STRIKES … AND YOU’RE OUT

July 15, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED BY THE DIVISIONAL COURT.  SEE THE LATER POST ON THE DECISION HERE. In Abbott & 3,499 Ors v Ministry of Defence [2022] EWHC 1807 (QB) Master Davison rejected the claimant’s arguments that it was permissible…

A DEFENDANT WHO DOES NOT ATTEND TRIAL CANNOT SIMPLY TURN THE CLOCK BACK: COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPLICATION UNDER CPR 39.3

July 13, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Mabrouk v Murray [2022] EWCA Civ 960 the Court of Appeal refused the defendant’s application for permission to appeal in a case where the defendant failed to attend the trial.   The Court of Appeal dismissed the application under CPR…

A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: "THAT SHIP HAS SAILED".

A COURT ORDER IS A SERIOUS, NOT TRIVIAL, MATTER: A PARTY IN BREACH CANNOT ACT AS IF THE ORDER HAD NEVER BEEN MADE: “THAT SHIP HAS SAILED”.

July 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

One of the most imprudent things to do in litigation is to let a court order be made, not comply and then respond by arguing that the order should never have been made anyway.  We see an example of this…

RESPONDENTS TO AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: YOU SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY WRITTEN A LETTER AND SAVED YOURSELVES £67,000

RESPONDENTS TO AN APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: YOU SHOULD HAVE SIMPLY WRITTEN A LETTER AND SAVED YOURSELVES £67,000

July 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Wasted Costs

In over three decades of writing about civil procedure I cannot recall any cases about costs following a permission to appeal hearing. There are now two cases this week.  In Kerseviciene v Quadri & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1757 (QB)…

FIXED COSTS OUSTED WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE COSTS ARE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A DETAILED ASSESSMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

FIXED COSTS OUSTED WHEN THE PARTIES AGREE COSTS ARE TO BE THE SUBJECT OF A DETAILED ASSESSMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

July 8, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

In the judgment today in Doyle -v- M&D Foundations & Building Services Limited [2022] EWCA CIV 927 the Court of Appeal found that it was possible for parties to contract out of the fixed costs provisions of the protocols. THE…

MORE ABOUT THE CLAIMS PORTAL: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LEGAL PROFESSIONALS RESPONDING TO CLAIM IS NOW REVOKED: KEEP UP TO DATE WITH TWITTER...

MORE ABOUT THE CLAIMS PORTAL: AMENDMENTS RELATING TO LEGAL PROFESSIONALS RESPONDING TO CLAIM IS NOW REVOKED: KEEP UP TO DATE WITH TWITTER…

June 1, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Rule Changes

Another tweet from HMSCTS clarifies the position in relation to defendant’s compulsory use of the claims portal which was discussed yesterday. It appears that the amendments relating to legal professionals responding to claims has not simply been postponed, but this…

ANOTHER CASE WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS WERE ISSUED IN LONDON BUT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEEDS

ANOTHER CASE WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS WERE ISSUED IN LONDON BUT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEEDS

May 30, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Fajr Ellis, R (On the Application Of) v Student Loans Company [2022] EWHC 1263 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham held that judicial review proceedings, issued in London, should be transferred to the administrative court in Leeds.   “In my judgment…

THE COURT DOESN'T LIKE MACHISMO,  AGGRESSIVE LETTERS AND THE LIKE: HOWEVER A CLAIMANT STILL HAS TO GET ON WITH THINGS

THE COURT DOESN’T LIKE MACHISMO, AGGRESSIVE LETTERS AND THE LIKE: HOWEVER A CLAIMANT STILL HAS TO GET ON WITH THINGS

May 30, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are some interesting observations about the conduct of litigation in the Court of Appeal judgment in Planon Ltd v Gilligan [2022] EWCA Civ 642.  The court made it clear that it is alive to “machismo” methods of conducting litigation….

IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?

IS THE CCMCC BREAKING THE LAW ?THE DAMAGES PILOT AND CASES WHERE THE CCMC ARE REFUSING TO ISSUE PROCEEDINGS: WHAT IS THE RELEVANT DATE FOR LIMITATION PURPOSES?

May 25, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

I have come across several examples recently of the CCMCC refusing to issue  claim forms on the basis that proceedings should have been issued online using the Damages Claim Pilot. In every case the papers have been returned wrongfully, the…

JUDGE REFUSES TO STRIKE OUT ACTION ON THE BASIS OF “ILLEGALITY”: THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT CAPABLE OF COMMITTING “CRIMINAL” ACTS

May 20, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Personal Injury

For the second time today I am writing about a case where the court has refused to strike out a statement of case. In Lewis-Ranwell v G4S Health Services (UK) Ltd & Ors [2022] EWHC 1213 (QB) Mr Justice Garnham…

WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESS CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: "IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE IN FACT SIGNED THE STATEMENT"

WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESS CANNOT SPEAK ENGLISH: “IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT HE IN FACT SIGNED THE STATEMENT”

May 19, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In Borra v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs & Anor [2022] EWHC 1195 (Ch) ICC Judge Mullen considered the requirements of the Practice Direction in relation to a witness giving evidence in a foreign language.  None of the…

A TRIAL BUT NOT BY JURY: DEFENDANT' APPLICATION FOR DEFAMATION TO BE DETERMINED BY JURY REFUSED

A TRIAL BUT NOT BY JURY: DEFENDANT’ APPLICATION FOR DEFAMATION TO BE DETERMINED BY JURY REFUSED

May 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Blake & Ors v Fox (Re Trial by Jury) [2022] EWHC 1124 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin refused the defendant’s application for a jury trial of a defamation action. “… since the removal of the statutory presumption in s.69(1), jury…

A DEFENDANT WAS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF AN ORDER AGREED BY THEIR COUNSEL: THE DEAL WAS DONE

A DEFENDANT WAS BOUND BY THE TERMS OF AN ORDER AGREED BY THEIR COUNSEL: THE DEAL WAS DONE

May 6, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Ashford Borough Council & Anor v Wilson [2022] EWHC 988 (QB) Darryl Allen QC, sitting as a High Court judge, found that a defendant was bound by the terms of an order drawn up with the agreement of their…

YET ANOTHER CASE ON BREACH OF JUDGMENT EMBARGO: SENDING OUT "EMBARGOED" PRESS RELEASE IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

YET ANOTHER CASE ON BREACH OF JUDGMENT EMBARGO: SENDING OUT “EMBARGOED” PRESS RELEASE IS A CONTEMPT OF COURT

May 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

We have another case of a party breaching an embargo on a draft judgment in the decision of Nicholas Caddick Q.C (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in  Match Group LLC & Anor v Muzmatch Ltd & Ors [2022]…

JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM SHOULD BE HEARD IN LEEDS: THE USE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE THE CHOICE OF VENUE

JUDICIAL REVIEW CLAIM SHOULD BE HEARD IN LEEDS: THE USE OF LONDON LAWYERS DOES NOT DRIVE THE CHOICE OF VENUE

May 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Khyam, R (On the Application Of) v Secretary of State for Justice [2022] EWHC 993 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham was fairly robust in ordering that a judicial review hearing should take place in Leeds.  This was the area with…

← Previous 1 … 16 17 18 … 25 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 16.8K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
  • AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP – BUT HINDER: “I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT’S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE “OPINION” EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
  • PROVING THINGS 287: CLAIMS FOR FUTURE LOSS OF EARNINGS OF A CHILD: A JUDGMENT FROM YESTERDAY (AND A WEBINAR NEXT MONDAY…)
  • “OVERHEATED LANGUAGE” A “CAVALIER APPROACH” AND “THIN ALLEGATIONS”: WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS

Top Posts

  • CHILD CLAIMANTS AND LOSS OF EARNINGS CLAIMS: WEBINAR 20th APRIL 2026: NOW WITH GREATLY EXPANDED QUESTIONNAIRE
  • AN APPEAL WAS LODGED IN TIME: SOMETIMES THE COURT DOES NOT HELP - BUT HINDER: "I HAVE CONCLUDED THAT THE COURT THWARTED THE LITIGANT'S PROPER AND REASONABLE ATTEMPT TO BRING THE APPEAL IN TIME"
  • MAZUR MATTERS 61: A COMPARISON OF THE LAW SOCIETY GUIDANCE BEFORE AND AFTER THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DANGERS OF LETTING WITNESSES GIVE "OPINION" EVIDENCE: TWELVE YEARS ON AND THINGS MAY HAVE NOT CHANGED THAT MUCH: APRIL 2014
  • "OVERHEATED LANGUAGE" A "CAVALIER APPROACH" AND "THIN ALLEGATIONS": WHY IT PAYS TO BE CAREFUL AND DETAILED WHEN MAKING APPLICATIONS TO DISCHARGE INJUNCTIONS

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.