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 11

THE CHIPS ARE DOWN FOR EXPERT WHO FAILED TO DECLARE AN INTEREST

July 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Members Content, Uncategorized

In The Ritz Hotel Casino Ltd -v- Al Geabury [2015] EWHC 2294(QB) Mrs Justice Simler DBE was critical of an expert who failed to declare an interest in a case. The expert had become a treating doctor. “It was no…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 3: THE COURT OF APPEAL AND ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDERS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

This is the third case today about the issue of costs and the conduct of proceedings. It is the most  complex, Smith & Nephew plc -v- ConvaTec Technologies Inc [2015] EWCA Civ 803. THE CASE The Court of Appeal allowed…

COSTS AND CONDUCT 2: LOSER PAYS ALL APPLIES: MOORE IS NOT LESS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In The London Borough of Tower Hamlets -v- The London Borough of Bromley [2015] EWHC 2271 (Ch) Mr Justice Norris refused an application for an issue based order and made an order for costs under the general rule that the…

COSTS & CONDUCT 1: MULTIPLE PARTIES, "BULLOCK" AND "SANDERSON" ORDERS AND INDEMNITY COSTS TO THE DEFENDANTS

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There are several cases today where the courts have considered the issue of where costs should fall and how judicial discretion should be exercised.  The first we consider is Asghar -v- Ahmad [2015] EWHC 2234 (QB) a decision of Mr…

OUCH! THINKING OF DRAFTING A COSTS BUDGET? BEST READ THIS FIRST

July 30, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in GSK Project Management Ltd -v- QPR Holdings Ltd [2015] EWHC 2274 (TCC) is one that needs to read by anyone involved in preparing a costs budget. To say the judge was critical of…

ISSUE BASED COSTS ORDER IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: A MATTER OF RISKS AND REWARDS

July 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In The Queen on the application of British Academy of Songwriters, Composers and Authorts -v- the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills [2015] EWHC 2401 (Admin) Mr Justice Green made an issue based costs order. THE CASE The…

MAKING A FINDING OF FRAUD WITHOUT EVIDENCE 3: THE COURTS ARE NOT EASILY AFFRONTED

July 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

For the third time in a fortnight the courts have sent out a clear message of the dangers of  judges making findings of fraud without having all the evidence to hand. THE CASE In Alpha Rocks Solicitors -v- Alade [2015]…

COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS; IMMEDIATE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS; SET OFF & POTENTIAL INSOLVENCY: A HIGH COURT DECISION

July 3, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In Rawlinson & Hunter Trustees SA -v- ITG [2015] EWHC 1924 (Ch) Mr Justice Morgan considered issues relating to indemnity costs and whether assessment of costs ordered on an interlocutory hearing should take place forthwith. KEY POINTS Although the conduct…

EVIDENCE, COSTS AND THE CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES: A CANADIAN VIEW

June 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

This blog has discussed  issues relating to the judicial approach of  the credibility  of witnesses many times.  Some judges have, shall we say, not been backward in giving their views on the “value” of the evidence of some of the…

PREVIOUS COSTS ORDERS STAND EVEN AFTER DISCONTINUANCE: A HIGH COURT DECISION

June 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Company -v- Al Refai [2015] EWHC 1793 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Smith considered whether discontinuance of an action should have an effect on previous costs orders. THE CASE The claimants had agreed terms of…

INCREASED COSTS AND "MYSTIFYING" PLEADINGS: A WARNING TO THOSE DRAFTING DEFENCES: IT'S GOING TO COST YOU

June 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Edis in Davies -v- Forrett [2015] EWHC 1761 QB is an object lesson on the dangers of lax pleading. Denying the relevance of a conviction in a pleading led to the joinder of a number…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND COSTS IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: NO DOUBLE STANDARDS FOR THE GOVERNMENT

June 22, 2015 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In The Queen (on the application of Bhatt) -v- The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1724 (Admin) Helen Mountfield QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge) made some interesting observations in relation to the Denton principles, conduct…

COSTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT WHEN CONSIDERING COSTS FOLLOWING AN ORDER FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION AT AN INTERLOCUTORY STAGE

June 14, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

In JSC Mezhdumarodiniy Promyshlenniy Bank -v- Pugachev [2015] EWHC 1694 (Ch) Mr Justice Hildyard considered the issue of whether a respondent to an order for cross-examination should be ordered to pay the costs of that application and whether those costs…

JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE COSTS ORDER WHICH WIPED OUT CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

April 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content

In Begum -v- Birmingham City Council [2015] EWCA Civ 386 the Court of Appeal allowed an appeal by a claimant where the decision on costs at first instance effectively deprived her of damages. THE CASE The issue is succinctly summarised…

WHY YOUR WITNESS STATEMENTS SHOULD BE MADE IN CHELSEA: MAKING FIRST HAND STATEMENTS AVOIDS PENALTIES

March 28, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

The post earlier this week in relation to the need for full disclosure on without notice injunctions also highlighted the need for first hand evidence. There are real dangers when a solicitor signs a witness statement. That principle was highlighted…

FOOTBALL, SEX, INJUNCTIONS AND MATERIAL NON-DISCLOSURE: BE CAREFUL NOT TO GET ON THE JUDGE'S OFFSIDE

March 26, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In YXB -v- TNO Mr Justice Warby set out the importance of full and frank disclosure on parties making an application for an ex-parte injunction.  It also reiterates the importance of claimants giving direct evidence whenever possible and the dangers…

"WALKING THE LINE": THE SRA ON BALANCING THE DUTIES OF LITIGATORS IN LITIGATION: A POTTED SUMMARY

March 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

For reasons that may become evident in later posts this is an apposite day to consider the duties owed by litigators. The SRA have produced “Walking the line” a consideration of the ethical duties owed by litigators. A BRIEF SUMMARY…

WHOLLY SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANT RECOVERS ONLY TWO-THIRDS OF COSTS BECAUSE OF FAILURE TO ENGAGE IN ADR

February 19, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Mediation & ADR, Members Content, Witness statements

In Christian -v- The Commission of Police for the Metropolis [2015] EWHC 371 (QB) Mr Justice Turner considered the costs applications of a failure to a defendant to engage in mediation. THE CASE The claimant was unsuccessful in an action…

ANOTHER CASE WHERE INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED – FOR PART OF THE CLAIM

February 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Disclosure, Members Content

There are now several posts on this blog considering the importance of an award for costs on an indemnity basis and cases where judges have considered this issue. Another example can be found in the decision of Stephen Jourdan QC…

JOINDER OF A PARTY FOR COSTS, INDEMNITY COSTS & COMMENTS ON COSTS OUTSIDE THE COSTS BUDGET: EXCELERATE TECHNOLOGY ROUND 2

February 6, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

We looked earlier at the observations on costs in giving judgment in Excelerate Technology Ltd -v- Cumberbatch [2015] EWHC B1 Mercantile. A supplementary judgment on the costs issues is now available.  It contains the rationale for the matters discussed in the…

WHEN WILL INDEMNITY COSTS BE ORDERED? A HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

February 5, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Expert evidence, Members Content, Written advocacy

Indemnity costs now carry extra weight in that, on assessment, the court is not bound by the principle of proportionality. In Siegel -v- Pummell [2015] EWHC 195 (QB) Mr Justice Wilkie reviewed the relevant principles in relation to indemnity costs….

← Previous 1 … 10 11

Subscribe to Blog via Email

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

Join 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • EXPERT WATCH 44: THE JUDGE PREFERS THE EVIDENCE OF ONE EXPERT OVER ANOTHER: IT IS AS SIMPLE AS THAT…
  • SERVICE POINTS 34: IS SERVICE BY EMAIL IS STILL VALID – IF IT SITS IN THE RECIPIENT’S SPAM BOX?
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE, RECOLLECTION AND CREDIBILITY: AMY WINEHOUSE, HER FRIENDS AND THE ACCURACY OF RECOLLECTION
  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: “NEARLY LEGAL” – AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT’S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT

Top Posts

  • A TRIBUTE TO GILES PEAKER: "NEARLY LEGAL" - AN EXTRAORDINARY MAN WITH EXTRAORDINARY TALENTS
  • DEDUCTING COSTS FROM THE CLAIMANT'S DAMAGES: A DEDUCTION OF £2,500 REDUCED TO £330: THE WARNING NOTICE FROM THE SRA REITERATED IN A COURT JUDGMENT
  • THERE MAY BE A LOT OF LAWYERS REPRESENTING A PARTY: HOWEVER THE CLAIM WAS STILL PRESENTED IN AN "UNFOCUSED" MANNER: A "MOVEABLE FEAST" IS NOT A WISE WAY TO CONDUCT LITIGATION
  • SERVICE POINTS 34: IS SERVICE BY EMAIL IS STILL VALID - IF IT SITS IN THE RECIPIENT'S SPAM BOX?
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN CAN A WITNESS BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COURT HEARING?

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.