Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Conduct » Page 10
THE EFFECT OF A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER : DEFENDANTS NOT ENTITLED TO COSTS, BUT LED TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS THROUGHOUT

THE EFFECT OF A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER : DEFENDANTS NOT ENTITLED TO COSTS, BUT LED TO NO ORDER FOR COSTS THROUGHOUT

November 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

There is an interesting judgment in Britned Development Ltd v ABB AB & Anor [2018] EWHC 3142 (Ch) which should be read by anyone thinking of withdrawing a Part 36 offer.   The defendants in this case made a Part 36 offer…

THE DANGERS OF BEING "BULLISH" ON PROCEDURAL ISSUES: APPLICATION DISMISSED (AND IT TOOK TOO LONG)

THE DANGERS OF BEING “BULLISH” ON PROCEDURAL ISSUES: APPLICATION DISMISSED (AND IT TOOK TOO LONG)

November 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

In Red Bull GmbH v Big Horn UK Ltd & Ors [2018] EWHC 2794 (Ch) Master Clark completed the judgment”I conclude by noting the regrettable extent to which this judgment has been lengthened by the determination of the procedural points of…

PROVING THINGS 131: IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE COURT SHOULD NOT DRAW INFERENCES IN SOLICITOR'S COSTS CASE

PROVING THINGS 131: IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE THE COURT SHOULD NOT DRAW INFERENCES IN SOLICITOR’S COSTS CASE

October 30, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

The judgment in  Gill v Heer Manak Solicitors [2018] EWHC 2881 (QB) is one of those cases that will get costs lawyers excited.  However it is not so much a case about costs as a case about evidence, or the absence…

"PUT BLUNTLY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE MISCONCEIVED": ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN A VERY ROBUST MOOD OVER COSTS

“PUT BLUNTLY THESE ARGUMENTS ARE MISCONCEIVED”: ADMINISTRATIVE COURT IN A VERY ROBUST MOOD OVER COSTS

October 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Kay, R (On the Application Of) v Scan-Thors (UK) Ltd & Anor (Costs) [2018] EWHC 2842 (Admin) the Divisional Court dealt robustly with arguments made by an interested party attempting to resist an order for costs. “Put bluntly, these submissions…

COSTS IN AN ESTATE CLAIM:  REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION WAS A FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

COSTS IN AN ESTATE CLAIM: REFUSAL TO ENGAGE IN MEDIATION WAS A FACTOR TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION

October 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Mediation, Mediation & ADR, Members Content

I am grateful to barrister  James Miller  for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Truman in Nicholls -v- Nicholls (19th June 2018), available here   NICH19062018APP.  The judgment is solely concerned with costs in relation to an action…

INDEMNITY COSTS: CAN BE AWARDED WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES FOUR DAYS INTO A SIX WEEK TRIAL

INDEMNITY COSTS: CAN BE AWARDED WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES FOUR DAYS INTO A SIX WEEK TRIAL

October 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Hosking & Anor v Apax Partners LLP & Ors [2018] EWHC 2732 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard awarded indemnity costs in a case where the claimant discontinued four days into a six week trial. “My assessment is that this was high-risk…

COURT STEPS OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: DEFENDANT'S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE

COURT STEPS OUTSIDE THE FIXED COSTS REGIME: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE

October 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) guards its fixed costs regime very jealously. Prior to the decision in Link Up Mitaka Ltd (t/a Thebigword) v Language Empire Ltd & Anor [2018] EWHC 2728 there appears to have only been one previous…

AGGRESSIVE LITIGATION IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE: JUDGE REFUSES DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT WITNESS STATEMENTS (WITH A COMMENT, OR TWO, AMONG THE WAY)

AGGRESSIVE LITIGATION IS COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE: JUDGE REFUSES DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO STRIKE OUT WITNESS STATEMENTS (WITH A COMMENT, OR TWO, AMONG THE WAY)

October 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

I am grateful to barrister Adam Heppinstall for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mr Justice Fraser today in Bates -v- The Post Office [2018] EWHC 2968 (QB). This is a forceful judgment and what the judge had…

PROPORTIONALITY: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE VIII: PROPORTIONALITY LEADS TO BASE COSTS BEING REDUCED FROM £115,906.00 TO £75,000

PROPORTIONALITY: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE VIII: PROPORTIONALITY LEADS TO BASE COSTS BEING REDUCED FROM £115,906.00 TO £75,000

October 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality

I am grateful to my colleague Robin Dunne for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Auerbach in Reynolds -v- One Stop Limited (21st September 2018). A copy of the judgment is available A79YM916 Reynolds v One Stop…

COST LAWYERS - SHOW THEM SOME RESPECT: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE HIGH COURT

COST LAWYERS – SHOW THEM SOME RESPECT: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE HIGH COURT

October 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

There is a footnote to the judgment of Master Leonard yesterday in Allen v Brethertons LLP [2018] EWHC B15 (Costs) that is worth reading for anyone involved in costs litigation. “Ms Moore, when acting as a Costs Lawyer with a right…

THERE ARE GOOD REASONS NOT TO CALL AN OPPONENT'S 'RIDICULOUS' : PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, CORRECT

THERE ARE GOOD REASONS NOT TO CALL AN OPPONENT’S ‘RIDICULOUS’ : PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, CORRECT

September 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content, Written advocacy

This blog has looked at issues relating to written submissions many times. Included in this has been the need to avoid hyperbole, which often backfires.  A good example, borrowed from the United States, is the judgment in Bennett -v- Start…

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

EXPERTS ACTING ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS: A MAJOR PROBLEM AREA: DETAILED CONSIDERATION FROM THE UPPER TRIBUNAL

September 13, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to  Graham Hain  for pointing out the decision of  the Upper Tribunal (Lands) Chamber in Gardiner & Theobald LLP v Jackson (VO) (RATING – procedure) [2018] UKUT 253 (LC). This specifically relates to experts in the Lands Chamber,…

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANTS IN GROUP LITIGATION ORDER:  INDEMNITY COSTS APPROPRIATE: AN EXHAUSTING READ

INDEMNITY COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANTS IN GROUP LITIGATION ORDER: INDEMNITY COSTS APPROPRIATE: AN EXHAUSTING READ

September 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Master Fontaine in The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation [2018] EWHC 2308 (QB) is a warning to any litigator thinking of applying for a Group Litigation Order (“GLO”).  The rule is clear basically – get your case in…

COSTS: PHONE HACKING AND REPUTATION: PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SUMS AT STAKE

COSTS: PHONE HACKING AND REPUTATION: PROPORTIONALITY IS NOT JUST ABOUT THE SUMS AT STAKE

July 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality

In Various Claimants (In Wave 1 of the Mirror Newspapers Hacking Litigation) v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC B13 (Costs) Master Gordon-Saker addressed the elements of “proportionality”. “The rule does not prevent the recovery of costs in an amount greater than the…

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF "ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR"

SHAMEFUL LETTERS, LATE DISCONTINUANCE, INDEMNITY COSTS (AND A REFUSAL TO MEDIATE HARDLY COUNTS): THE CLAIMANT WHO LOST SIGHT OF “ANY BASIC STANDARD OF DECENT & COMPASSIONATE BEHAVIOUR”

July 10, 2018 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Earlier posts have looked at the issue of aggressive correspondence. Others have looked at the issues of conduct, refusal to mediate and questions relating to indemnity costs. I am grateful to David Turner QC for drawing my attention to a…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS EMAILED SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL  & SPOKE TO THIRD PARTIES WHILST IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS EMAILED SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL & SPOKE TO THIRD PARTIES WHILST IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE

July 5, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Conduct, Members Content, Striking out

NB THIS CASE WAS OVERTURNED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL IN Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1 In Hughes Jarvis Limited v Searle [2018] EW Misc B6 (CC) Her Honour Judge Clarke struck out the claimant’s case…

COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS

COURTESY, CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: A ROUND UP OF THE POSTS

July 3, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Useful links

Last week I set out the responses on Twitter about professional courtesy and conduct.  This is a good opportunity to recap on the four posts on this subject. “AGGRESSIVE CORRESPONDENCE” AND EFFECTIVE LITIGATION: ARE THE TWO SYNONYMOUS OR DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED…

CORONER ORDERED TO PAY COSTS: CAMDEN RESIDENTS WILL PICK UP THE BILL...

CORONER ORDERED TO PAY COSTS: CAMDEN RESIDENTS WILL PICK UP THE BILL…

June 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Adath Yisroel Burial Society & Anor, R (on the application of) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner North London [2018] EWHC 1286 (Admin) the Divisional Court held that a coroner, who was unsuccessful in defending an application for judicial review,…

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER'S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LIABILITY FOR COSTS LAWYER’S ACTS: THE COURT OF APPEAL DECISION IN GEMPRIDE -v- BAMRAH

June 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

Yesterday I gave a short summary of the decision in Gempride Ltd v Bamrah & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 1367. This is a case worth looking at in detail.   The substantive case settled for £50,000 shortly after issue. The question of…

5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 2: WHAT THEY DON'T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL: 10 POSTS THAT STARTED ON A TRAIN STATION

5th BIRTHDAY REVIEW 2: WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL: 10 POSTS THAT STARTED ON A TRAIN STATION

June 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Advocacy, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

I am continuing looking back at series on this blog over the past five years. A series of posts in early 2017 was probably the most “collaborative” work on this blog.  Dozens of people participated in giving advice to law…

COURT OF APPEAL STATES THAT NO ORDER FOR COSTS IS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER: "THIS IS A MELANCHOLY TALE"

COURT OF APPEAL STATES THAT NO ORDER FOR COSTS IS THE APPROPRIATE ORDER: “THIS IS A MELANCHOLY TALE”

May 31, 2018 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In  Sirketi v Kupeli & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 1264 the Court of Appeal overturned an order for costs in favour of the claimants with an order for no costs. It was, as Lord Justice Hickinbottom observed “a melancholy tale”.  The…

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COST BUDGETS: "THEY WILL HAVE BECOME AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF THE LAWYERS"

WITNESS STATEMENTS AND COST BUDGETS: “THEY WILL HAVE BECOME AN ARTIFICIAL CONSTRUCT OF THE LAWYERS”

May 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Witness statements

There are some interesting observations in the judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Various Claimants v MGN Ltd [2018] EWHC 1244 (Ch).  The way in which a witness statement is likely to be drafted can be considered at the cost budget…

FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT'S APPEAL ALLOWED

FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE BY TRIAL JUDGE: DEFENDANT’S APPEAL ALLOWED

May 24, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content

The previous post dealt with a judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer overturning a judgment in favour of the claimant. The judgment in Molodi v Cambridge Vibration Maintenance Service & Anor [2018] EWHC 1288 (QB)   is in similar terms.  Only on…

FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT - EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES

FAILING TO TAKE A PROPER PROOF OF EVIDENCE IS UNREASONABLE CONDUCT AND LEADS TO COSTS CONSEQUENCES FOR DEFENDANT – EVEN WHEN CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES

May 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment today in  Harrap v Brighton & Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust [2018] EWHC 1063 (QB) illustrates the importance of taking adequate witness statements.  It shows that a failure to review the situation and take a full proof of evidence…

THE JUDGMENT IN ALI -V- CHANNEL 5 2:  CLAIMANTS FAILED TO BEAT PART 36 OFFER, NO GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM NORMAL COSTS CONSEQUENCES

THE JUDGMENT IN ALI -V- CHANNEL 5 2: CLAIMANTS FAILED TO BEAT PART 36 OFFER, NO GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM NORMAL COSTS CONSEQUENCES

April 19, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

This is the second post about the decision on costs in Ali & Anor v Channel 5 Broadcast Ltd [2018] EWHC 840 (Ch). Here we look at the issue relating to Part 36.  The defendant had made a Part 36 offer….

MAKING UNWARRANTED ASSERTIONS LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS – AGAINST A SECRETARY OF STATE

April 17, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

There are numerous cases where the courts have considered conduct that leads to indemnity costs. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v Barry [2018] EWCA Civ 790 the Court of Appeal found that the Home Department’s conduct of an…

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE:  PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF  CONDUCT AND COSTS

WHEN THE JUDGE IS ENTITLED NOT TO DECIDE ON THE EVIDENCE: PLUS THE IMPORTANT ISSUE OF CONDUCT AND COSTS

March 27, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The Court of Appeal decision today in Constandas v Lysandrou & Ors [2018] EWCA Civ 613 illustrates two distinct issues: The position when a judge is unable to make a finding on the evidence. What conduct can lead to a successful…

LITIGATORS - MISSED A DEADLINE? DON'T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

LITIGATORS – MISSED A DEADLINE? DON’T DIG BIGGER HOLES FOR YOURSELF: DIG YOURSELF OUT (WITH A LITTLE HELP FROM YOUR FRIENDS)

March 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Jackson, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision in Wingate & Anor v The Solicitors Regulation Authority [2018] EWCA Civ 366 may well be Jackson L.J’s last judgment (certainly as a full time judge). It concerned the conduct of solicitors. I want to look at one aspect…

THE COURT "REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED" EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

THE COURT “REGRETTED IF NOT DEPLORED” EXCESSIVE EXPENDITURE ON JURISDICTION ISSUES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Members Content, Proportionality

In Ogale Community & Ors v Royal Dutch Shell Plc & Anor [2018] EWCA Civ 191 the Court of Appeal made observations about the need to keep applications about jurisdiction in proportion.  “… hearings concerning the issue of appropriate forum should…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY A DOZEN THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: A RECAP

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY A DOZEN THINGS TO THINK ABOUT: A RECAP

January 29, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, QOCS

Given recent decisions on fundamental dishonesty this may be a good time to rake over some key points. “I assure the Committee that the way that the clause is drafted should not result in the courts using the measures lightly….

FACT FINDING IN THE FAMILY COURT:  ERRATIC WITNESSES AND BEHAVIOUR ON DISCLOSURE WHERE THE CONDUCT WAS NOT FAR SHORT OF CONTEMPT

FACT FINDING IN THE FAMILY COURT: ERRATIC WITNESSES AND BEHAVIOUR ON DISCLOSURE WHERE THE CONDUCT WAS NOT FAR SHORT OF CONTEMPT

January 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil evidence, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content, Witness statements

We have looked at “fact finding” by the courts many times.  The fact finder in a family case has a particularly  arduous and unenviable task . The judge has to  assess evidence that is often highly charged, and where there…

COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL  - IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

COUNTY COURT HAS POWER TO SET ASIDE A JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL – IF IT WAS OBTAINED BY FRAUD

December 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Setting aside judgment, Witness statements

The decision in Salekipour & Anor v Parmar [2017] EWCA Civ 2141 was made after three previous hearings a (including two appeal hearings) in the lower courts.  It was the only time the claimants were successful.  It involved an important procedural…

COURT OF APPEAL STATES INDEMNITY COSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED: SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BULLISH IN BRADFORD...

COURT OF APPEAL STATES INDEMNITY COSTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARDED: SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE BULLISH IN BRADFORD…

December 17, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

It is unusual for the Court of Appeal to interfere with a discretionary order in relation to costs. It is even more unusual for the court to replace an order for costs on the standard basis with indemnity costs. This…

COSTS DISALLOWED IN FULL DUE TO MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

December 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In GSD Law Ltd v Wardman & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 2144 the Court of Appeal upheld a decision whereby the claimants’ costs were disallowed because of misconduct during the assessment process.   “The alleged misconduct in this case goes to…

WRITING TO THE COURT ON A UNILATERAL BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS DON'T DO IT

WRITING TO THE COURT ON A UNILATERAL BASIS: COURT OF APPEAL SAYS DON’T DO IT

December 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Members Content

Several passages in the judgment in Zuma’s Choice Pet Products Ltd & Anor v Azumi Ltd & Ors [2017] EWCA Civ 2133 emphasise a point made earlier this year. A litigant should not write to the court on a unilateral basis….

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 4: THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A "PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION" AND MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE MAY WELL BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW, SERIES 2 PART 4: THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A “PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION” AND MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE MAY WELL BE COUNTERPRODUCTIVE

November 16, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

This series is about learning from judges. Here I advocate (hopefully in a civil way) learning from one judgment.  That is the judgment of District Judge Chin in the  extraordinary case of Revson -v- Cinque & Cinque in 1999 (PC….

"BREATHTAKINGLY RUDE" LETTERS INDICATED AN INTENT TO ABUSE THE PROCESS: DEFENDANT'S  CONDUCT IN FAILING TO PAY FOR PITCH CROSSED THE LINE

“BREATHTAKINGLY RUDE” LETTERS INDICATED AN INTENT TO ABUSE THE PROCESS: DEFENDANT’S CONDUCT IN FAILING TO PAY FOR PITCH CROSSED THE LINE

October 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content

In Bernard Sport Surfaces Ltd v Astrosoccer4u Ltd [2017] EWHC 2425 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson had strong words to say about correspondence and conduct which, he held, were simply attempts to avoid a debt that was lawfully due. “… all of…

CONDUCT AND LITIGATION: THE SEPARATION OF POWERS AND THE RULE OF LAW: A SECRETARY OF STATE DOES “NOT REQUIRE KINDERGARTEN-TYPE ELABORATION”

October 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Conduct, Members Content

The headnote in R (on the application of AM and others) v Secretary of State for the Home Department (liberty to apply – scope – discharging mandatory orders) [2017] UKUT 372 (IAC) appears relatively benign, Mr Justice McCloskey deciding that the upper…

THE BANK OF IRELAND CASE ROUND TWO: APPROPRIATE SUMS FOR AN INTERIM PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED BECAUSE OF CONDUCT OF EXPERT

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Experts, Members Content

In an earlier post we looked at the judgment in Bank of Ireland -v- Watts Group PLC   [2017]EWHC 1667 (TCC) where Mr Justice Coulson was particularly excoriating about the claimant’s expert. Having lost the case the bank had to pay the…

BEHAVIOUR IN THE COURTROOM - IT GOES FURTHER THAN YOU THINK:  SOME CASES AND SOME GUIDANCE

BEHAVIOUR IN THE COURTROOM – IT GOES FURTHER THAN YOU THINK: SOME CASES AND SOME GUIDANCE

October 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Access to justice, Applications, Civil evidence, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Members Content

The vast majority of studies on behaviour in the courtroom concentrate on the interaction between the judge, the advocates and the witnesses.  However the courtroom is a big place. Twice in recent weeks we have seen judges refer to the…

SENSIBLE CONCESSIONS PLAY NO PART IN THE ORDERING OF INDEMNITY COSTS: ORDER MADE ON MERIT

SENSIBLE CONCESSIONS PLAY NO PART IN THE ORDERING OF INDEMNITY COSTS: ORDER MADE ON MERIT

September 19, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I have written about the substantive judgment in Imperial Chemical Industries Limited -v- Merit Merrell Technology Limited [2017] EWHC 1763 (TCC) several times already.  There is a shorter judgment on costs at  Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd v Merit Merrell Technology Ltd [2017] EWHC…

FACT FINDING FOR LAWYERS : HOLIDAY CLAIMS: SRA GUIDANCE - NOT A WALK ON THE BEACH

FACT FINDING FOR LAWYERS : HOLIDAY CLAIMS: SRA GUIDANCE – NOT A WALK ON THE BEACH

September 8, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

The Solicitors Regulation Authority has issued a specific warning notice in relation to holiday sickness claims.  The notice, issued on the 6th September 2017, contains important guidance in relation to the role of the solicitor in investigating facts. The guidance…

"ROBUST" BUT NOT GRATUITOUSLY OFFENSIVE:" SRA GUIDANCE ON COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER FIRMS AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: THE FUTILITY OF RUDENESS

“ROBUST” BUT NOT GRATUITOUSLY OFFENSIVE:” SRA GUIDANCE ON COMMUNICATIONS WITH OTHER FIRMS AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: THE FUTILITY OF RUDENESS

August 24, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content

The Solicitors Regulatory Authority has issued guidance today on “Offensive communications”   It gives me a chance to recap on earlier posts about the futility of rudeness. “Your role is to act in the client’s best interests; antagonising the other side…

COPYING THE OTHER SIDE INTO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT: A RECAP AND REVIEW OF THE EARLIER CASE MENTIONED

COPYING THE OTHER SIDE INTO CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE COURT: A RECAP AND REVIEW OF THE EARLIER CASE MENTIONED

August 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

I am writing, again, about the the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Topping v Ralph Tristees Ltd [2017] EWHC 1954 (QB). The point the case makes about the correct route of appeal has been commented on, however I had not anticipated…

COSTS AFTER A PART 36 OFFER AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: CONDUCT OF DEFENCE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INDEMNITY COSTS

COSTS AFTER A PART 36 OFFER AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: CONDUCT OF DEFENCE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INDEMNITY COSTS

August 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I have written several times about the judgment of Thirlwall LJ in Marsh -v- MOJ*. I have been provided with a copy of a note of the judgment on costs given on the 31st July 2017. I am grateful to…

YOU OFFERED ME £100,000: I'VE ACCEPTED £15,000- OH AND I WANT MY COSTS: THE DANGERS OF NOT NEGOTIATING AND WHY THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS

YOU OFFERED ME £100,000: I’VE ACCEPTED £15,000- OH AND I WANT MY COSTS: THE DANGERS OF NOT NEGOTIATING AND WHY THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY INDEMNITY COSTS

July 28, 2017 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

I tried to summarise the judgment of Mr Justice Mann in Jordan -v- MGN Limited [2017] EWHC 1937 (Ch) and I found it  difficult. Every word of the judgment is important.  It shows, at least, a very insouciant, approach by the…

STOP USING PROCEDURE TO BULLY  VULNERABLE PEOPLE:  HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS TOLD TO READ DENTON PROPERLY

STOP USING PROCEDURE TO BULLY VULNERABLE PEOPLE: HM REVENUE & CUSTOMS TOLD TO READ DENTON PROPERLY

June 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have no intention of taking this blog into areas of taxation and customs and excise. However the judgment of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax) in E -v- The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2017] UKFTT 348 (TCC) contains…

DUTY TO DRAW ADVERSE AUTHORITIES TO THE  ATTENTION OF THE COURT: HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

DUTY TO DRAW ADVERSE AUTHORITIES TO THE ATTENTION OF THE COURT: HOW FAR DOES IT GO?

May 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Members Content

The duty to draw the court’s attention to authorities that do not support your case is an important one.  In Weir -v- Hildson [2017] EWHC 983 (Ch) Mr Justice Nugee discusses the extent of this duty. THE CASE The applicant…

BILL OF £101,677.21  AND THE CLAIMANT ENDS UP WITH £2,515.60: MISCONDUCT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

BILL OF £101,677.21 AND THE CLAIMANT ENDS UP WITH £2,515.60: MISCONDUCT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCESS HAS SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

April 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Justin Edwards of BLM solicitors for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Whalan in Jago -v-Whitbread a decision of Master Whalan. A copy of that case is attached here ( 2016.10.05 – Approved Judgment)….

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE...)

BE CAREFUL WHAT YOU WRITE: THE SUPREME COURT MAY READ IT ONE DAY (AND IT MAY END UP ON A BLOG SOMEWHERE…)

April 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

There has already been some interesting debate on Twitter about one aspect of the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that has not made the headlines.   Dominic Regan observed that the case is another example…

← Previous 1 … 9 10 11 12 Next →

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (2): CONSIDERATION OF “PROMPTNESS” WHEN NOTHING HAPPENED FOR A YEAR…
  • THE NEW SRA GUIDANCE ON EFFECTIVE SUPERVISION 6: WHAT IS MEANT BY THE “CONDUCT OF LITIGATION”? (IT TURNS OUT ITS A MATTER OF “PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT”)
  • AN APPLICATION TO SET A DEFAULT JUDGMENT ASIDE (1): THE EVIDENCE AS TO THE MERITS: THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE CONDUCTED A “MINI TRIAL”
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: EVIDENCE BY VIDEO LINK FROM ABROAD: A POINT TO WATCH : SOME USEFUL GUIDANCE AND PRACTICAL STEPS
  • EXPERT WATCH 51: THE EXPERT VALUERS SHOULD HAVE GONE INTO THIS EXERCISE “BLIND” – THEIR CREDIBILITY WOULD BE “MUCH IMPROVED”

Top Posts

NEW COURT FEES COMING INTO FORCE ON THE 13th JULY 2026: SOME BRAND NEW PROVISIONS AND THE INFLATIONARY INCREASES: THE CIVIL AND FAMILY COURTS, THE MAGISTRATES' COURT, THE LANDS CHAMBER (AND MANY OTHERS)
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
DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES SHOULD BE CAREFUL WHO IS GIVEN THE TASK OF TRYING COMPLEX TRIALS: COURT OF APPEAL MISSIVE TO DESIGNATED CIVIL JUDGES (& MANY OTHERS...)
A NEW SERIES OF USEFUL ONLINE CALCULATORS FOR LITIGATORS AND THE LEGAL PROFESSION (WITH A 20% DISCOUNT FOR CLB READERS): MAKING IT ALL ADD UP
BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: MAKING AN APPLICATION TO THE COURT: HOW TO AVOID PROBLEMS: KEY POINTS AND SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS

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.