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 6
CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE - BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

CAN AN EXPERT WORK ON A CONDITIONAL FEE BASIS? IT MAY BE POSSIBLE – BUT IS DEFINITELY NOT WISE

February 4, 2025 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am grateful to Professor Keith Rix for allowing me to use an article that appears in February’s Expert Healthcare Witness Matters*.  This deals with the question of whether an expert can, or should, agree to act on a conditional…

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE'S VIEW XV: REMEMBER JUDGES MAY BE TALKING ABOUT YOU: ADVICE FROM THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO

ADVOCACY THE JUDGE’S VIEW XV: REMEMBER JUDGES MAY BE TALKING ABOUT YOU: ADVICE FROM THE STREETS OF SAN FRANCISCO

January 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Written advocacy

Here we look at an interview with San Francisco Superior Court Judge, Curtis Karnow.  The interview was about a book the judge had written “Litigation in Practice“, which is available in the UK.  The original interview by is Ros Todd. As…

WHEN A PARTY CITES, AND RELIES, ON CASE LAW THAT "DOES NOT EXIST" :"A MOST UNHAPPY FEATURE OF THIS CASE"

WHEN A PARTY CITES, AND RELIES, ON CASE LAW THAT “DOES NOT EXIST” :”A MOST UNHAPPY FEATURE OF THIS CASE”

January 31, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

There is a very unusual element to the judgment of Mr Justice Kerr in Olsen & Anor v Finansiel Stabilitet A/S [2025] EWHC 42 (KB). The appellants, litigants in person, relied on case law that apparently supported their case. That…

COST BITES 212: ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEDUCTIONS OF COSTS FROM CLIENT'S DAMAGES: THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 AND THE SRA CODE OF CONDUCT

COST BITES 212: ARGUMENTS ABOUT DEDUCTIONS OF COSTS FROM CLIENT’S DAMAGES: THE CONSUMER RIGHTS ACT 2015 AND THE SRA CODE OF CONDUCT

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are again returning to the judgment of Cost Judge Rowley in  Perrett v Wolferstans LLP [2025] EWHC 68 (SCCO).  Here we examine the claimant’s (former client’s) arguments in relation to the deduction of costs breaching the Consumer Rights Act 2015…

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

COST BITES 211: THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: LARGE ELEMENTS OF POINTS OF DISPUTE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF INADEQUATE PARTICULARISATION

January 27, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content

In St Francis Group 1 Ltd & Ors v Kelly & Anor [2025] EWHC 125 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard struck out large parts of a defendant’s Points of Dispute.  The Points of Dispute were inadequately particularised. The judgment contains an…

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR'S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY'S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

EXTRAORDINARY CONDUCT WHICH LED TO SOLICITOR’S UNLAWFUL DEDUCTION FROM A PROTECT PARTY’S DAMAGES: JUDGMENT FROM THE SCCO

January 24, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  AKS v National Farmers Union Mutual Insurance Society Ltd [2025] EWHC 126 (SCCO) Costs Judge Leonard recounted an extraordinary set of facts where a solicitor had wrongly deducted sums from their client’s damages.  The judgment shows that this issue…

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW XIV: "RAMBO TACTICS" DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE...)

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW XIV: “RAMBO TACTICS” DO NOT WORK (NEITHER DO THREATENING YOUR OPPONENT WITH A PROCTOLOGY EXAMINATION OR MAKING FACES AT THE JUDGE…)

January 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Useful links

Continuing with revisiting guidance from judges in relation to advocacy. 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…

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES II: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND: COSTS REDUCED BY 50%

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES II: KERINS -V- HEART OF ENGLAND: COSTS REDUCED BY 50%

January 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are continuing this series looking at issues of misconduct in the assessment process by looking at the decision of District Judge Griffith in Kerins -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust (Birmingham, 31st July 2015). The claimant’s costs were reduced by…

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS - A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1:  LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

MISCONDUCT IN ASSESSMENT AND REDUCTIONS IN COSTS – A REVIEW OF THE CASES 1: LAHEY -v- PIRELLI TYRES LIMITED

January 13, 2025 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Webinar

Recent cases on the issue of costs being reduced, or disallowed, due to the conduct of the assessment proceedings have led me to review the cases on this topic. This is the first in a series of posts about the…

"PROFESSIONALISM DEMANDS THAT LAWYERS PICK THEIR BATTLES WISELY": JUDGE GRANTS EXTENSION AND ORDERS THE LAWYERS TO GO TO LUNCH TOGETHER...

“PROFESSIONALISM DEMANDS THAT LAWYERS PICK THEIR BATTLES WISELY”: JUDGE GRANTS EXTENSION AND ORDERS THE LAWYERS TO GO TO LUNCH TOGETHER…

December 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Advocacy, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content

Coming to the end of the year, and with Christmas nearly upon us, all lawyers  could benefit from reading the judgment of Chief U.S. District Judge David Proctor in McCullers v. Koch Foods of Ala., LLC in 2024 WL 4907226…

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

December 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP [2024] EWHC 3054 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber held that the claimant’s case was struck out because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order.  The judge refused the claimant’s application to…

PROMOTING THE ART AND SCIENCE OF THE HUMBLE COURT BUNDLE: A "LITIGATOR'S SURVIVAL GUIDE":  WEBINAR 4th DECEMBER 2024

PROMOTING THE ART AND SCIENCE OF THE HUMBLE COURT BUNDLE: A “LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE”: WEBINAR 4th DECEMBER 2024

December 2, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Members Content, Webinar

The problems that courts have with bundles have always been a prominent part of this blog.  A post about bundles, “Sedley’s Laws” and how to prepare a bundle was the most read post on the blog for four years. However…

PROVING THINGS 251: TRIAL JUDGE FINDS THAT DEFENDANT'S LETTER WAS NOT WRITTEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AND CONCOCTED IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXCULPATE

PROVING THINGS 251: TRIAL JUDGE FINDS THAT DEFENDANT’S LETTER WAS NOT WRITTEN CONTEMPORANEOUSLY AND CONCOCTED IN AN ATTEMPT TO EXCULPATE

November 27, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Berkley in Melia & Anor v Tamlyn And Son ltd [2024] EWHC 3002 (Ch) has a number of interesting aspects in relation to the assessment of evidence.  One of those things is the judge’s rejection of…

COST BITES 196: COSTS IN A FAMILY CASE: “EVERY POUND THEY SPEND FIGHTING EACH OTHER IS A POUND THAT WILL NOT BE AVAILABLE FOR THEM AND THEIR CHILDREN”

November 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Contribution proceedings, Costs, Members Content

In LI v FT (Maintenance Pending Suit: Costs) [2024] EWFC 342 Deputy District Judge Harrop made some important remarks in relation to the amount spent in bringing, and defending, an application for maintenance spending suit. “I am dismayed by what…

COST BITES 191: COSTS BILL REDUCED TO NIL BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT: "THIS IS THE WORSE EXAMPLE OF TAMPERING WITH A FILE OF PAPERS THAT I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED"

COST BITES 191: COSTS BILL REDUCED TO NIL BECAUSE OF MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT: “THIS IS THE WORSE EXAMPLE OF TAMPERING WITH A FILE OF PAPERS THAT I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED”

November 11, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Simon Gibbs of GWS Costs for sending me a copy of the judgment of Costs Judge James in Kapoor -v- Johal [2024] EWHC 2853 (SCCO).  The judge made findings of serious misconduct by the receiving party…

THE MAN ON THE CLAPHAM OMNIBUS -  WHICH IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE AT A REMOTE HEARING

THE MAN ON THE CLAPHAM OMNIBUS – WHICH IS NOT A GOOD PLACE TO BE WHEN GIVING EVIDENCE AT A REMOTE HEARING

November 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Remote hearings

In Raja & Anor v ATM Law & Ors [2024] EWHC 2782 (Ch) the witnesses gave evidence (or attempted to give evidence) from inappropriate places, including a bus.  The judgment of Master Clark shows the need to follow the correct…

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS DO NOT A HAPPY JUDGE MAKE II: THE COURT MAY IMPOSE SANCTIONS IN APPROPRIATE CASES

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS DO NOT A HAPPY JUDGE MAKE II: THE COURT MAY IMPOSE SANCTIONS IN APPROPRIATE CASES

October 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

In  Corfield v Howard [2024] EWHC 2727 (Comm)  HH Judge Davis-White KC (sitting as a Judge of the King’s Bench Division) reminded practitioners of the need for skeleton arguments to be filed in  time accordance with court orders.    …

ADVOCACY - THE JUDGE'S VIEW III: PREPARE PROPERLY AND SEE THE SCENE FOR YOURSELF:  A VIEW FROM CANADA

ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW III: PREPARE PROPERLY AND SEE THE SCENE FOR YOURSELF: A VIEW FROM CANADA

October 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Written advocacy

As part of the repeated series looking at the advice that judges give to advocates (and how this relates to civil litigators in particular) we return to Canada. Judge Carol Baird Ellan collected the views of 12 of her colleagues…

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH PARTIES IF THE PART 8 PROCEDURE IS TO BE USED IN MATTERS OF CONTRACTUAL CONSTRUCTION: BEST NOT THROW THE KITCHEN SINK INTO THE MIX

THE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH PARTIES IF THE PART 8 PROCEDURE IS TO BE USED IN MATTERS OF CONTRACTUAL CONSTRUCTION: BEST NOT THROW THE KITCHEN SINK INTO THE MIX

October 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

In Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building And Refurbishment Ltd [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC) HHJ Stephen Davies sent out a clear reminder of the duties on all parties in a Part 8 case where the court was being asked to…

COST BITES 186: "MY CASE WAS SO HOPELESS I SHOULDN'T HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS": NOT A WHOLLY ATTRACTIVE ARGUMENT

COST BITES 186: “MY CASE WAS SO HOPELESS I SHOULDN’T HAVE TO PAY YOUR COSTS”: NOT A WHOLLY ATTRACTIVE ARGUMENT

October 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Mainwaring v Bailey [2024] EWHC 2614 (Fam) Mr Justice Henke ordered an unsuccessful appellant to pay the respondent’s costs.  He rejected the appellant’s argument that his appeal was so evidently hopeless that the respondent should not have responded.   He…

ANOTHER CASE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: s.57 DOES NOT APPLY TO A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT

ANOTHER CASE ABOUT THE LIMITS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: s.57 DOES NOT APPLY TO A CLAIM FOR FALSE IMPRISONMENT

October 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Damages, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

In  Andrew Reynolds v Chief Constable of Kent Police [2024] EWHC 2487 (KB) Mr Justice Sheldon found that a claim for false imprisonment was not a claim for damages for personal injury.  A false imprisonment claim, therefore, was not subject to the…

COST BITES 185: VARYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AFTER A CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES:  THE COURT CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRE-DISCONTINUANCE CONDUCT

COST BITES 185: VARYING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AFTER A CLAIMANT DISCONTINUES: THE COURT CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PRE-DISCONTINUANCE CONDUCT

October 14, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In her very last judgment in the case of Elphicke v Times Media Ltd [2024] EWHC 2595 (KB) Master McCloud considered the question of whether it is possible for a court to take into account pre-discontinuance conduct when considering whether…

APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANT'S SOLICITORS DISMISSED:  NO DUTY TO "DUMP" A CLIENT WHEN FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED

APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST CLAIMANT’S SOLICITORS DISMISSED: NO DUTY TO “DUMP” A CLIENT WHEN FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY IS ALLEGED

September 25, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, QOCS, Wasted Costs

In  Williams-Henry v Associated British Ports & Anor (Re Wasted Costs Order) [2024] EWHC 2415 (KB)  Mr Justice Ritchie dismissed an application for wasted costs against the claimant’s solicitors.  This dismissal took place at “stage one” – with the allegations…

PREPARING TRIAL AND APPLICATION BUNDLES: A LITIGATOR'S SURVIVAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 4th DECEMBER 2024

PREPARING TRIAL AND APPLICATION BUNDLES: A LITIGATOR’S SURVIVAL GUIDE: WEBINAR 4th DECEMBER 2024

September 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Members Content, Webinar

The previous post on Serra -v- Harvey [2024] EWHC 2250 (KB) has led to me finalising a (long-prepared) webinar on bundles. In Serra  wasted costs were ordered on an indemnity basis against the claimant’s solicitors because the lateness and condition of the trial bundles. The bundles…

COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH

COST BITES 182: ANOTHER CASE OF A CLAIMANT PAYING THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING BECAUSE OF AN UNREALISTIC APPROACH

September 10, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Jenkins v Thurrock Council [2024] EWHC 2248 (KB) Master Thornett revisited the principles considered in Worcester v Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) It was held that the claimant’s unrealistic figures in a costs budget should lead to the claimant paying…

A COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT TOTALLY TOTALLY FAILED TO DO ITS JOB: COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR DEFENDANT TO RELY ON COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT "SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER"

A COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT TOTALLY TOTALLY FAILED TO DO ITS JOB: COURT REFUSES PERMISSION FOR DEFENDANT TO RELY ON COUNTER-SCHEDULE THAT “SERVES NO PURPOSE WHATSOEVER”

August 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury

This blog has looked extensively at judicial criticism of schedules of damages over the years.  It has to be remembered that counter-schedules also have to be properly drafted. This is emphasised. in the judgment of Mr Justice Julian Knowles in…

VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT

VALUATION EXPERTS SHOULD SHOW THEIR CALCULATIONS: ESTIMATING A VALUE AND WORKING BACKWARDS TO JUSTIFY THAT DOES NOT FIND FAVOUR WITH THE COURT

August 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Sahota v Sahota & Ors [2024] EWHC 2165 (Ch)  HHJ Rawlings (sitting as a High Court Judge)was critical of an expert witness who, in essence, worked backwards in relation to a valuation.  The judge found that having come to…

COST BITES 180: EXCESSIVE BUDGET LEADS TO PARTY BEING ORDERED TO PAY THE COSTS OF A BUDGETING HEARING

August 28, 2024 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

In Nicholas Worcester v Dr Philip Hopley [2024] EWHC 2181 (KB) Master Thornett awarded costs against a party who, the Master felt, had over-inflated their costs budget.   The case stands as a warning that a party putting forward a budget which is…

COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)

COST BITES 177: SUCCESSFUL CLAIMANT RECOVERS ONLY 20% OF ITS COSTS (STILL GETS AN INTERIM PAYMENT OF £2 MILLION)

August 16, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Tata Consultancy Services Ltd v Disclosure and Barring Service [2024] EWHC 2025 (TCC) Mr Justice Constable found that a “successful” claimant who had recovered nearly £3.7 million in damages should only recover 20% of its costs.  Both parties had…

COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: "HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS"

COST BITES 174: A TRUSTEE IN BANKRUPTCY HAS NO SPECIAL STATUS WHEN IT COMES TO COSTS: “HE HAS NOT SUGGESTED THAT, HAD HE WON, HE WOULD NOBLY DECLINE TO ASK FOR HIS COSTS”

July 30, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Paul Matthews (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Broom v Aguilar [2024] EWHC 1961 (Ch).  The judge rejected an argument that a different order for costs should be made because the respondent/clamant…

COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT'S COSTS

COST BITES 172: CLAIMANT WHOSE CASE WAS STRUCK OUT HAD TO PAY THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS

July 24, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Khokan v Nirjhor (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 1873 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill rejected an argument that a claimant, whose case had been struck out due to non compliance with a peremptory order, should then not be liable to pay…

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024

THE JOINT MEETING OF EXPERTS AND THE JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT: WEBINAR 29th JULY 2024

July 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Webinar

I was a more than a little shocked to read the judgment in Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 it is a case that shows that lawyers are still making…

COURT MADE PEREMPTORY ORDER THAT CLAIMANT PAY COSTS: ARTICLE 6 RIGHTS NOT INFRINGED

COURT MADE PEREMPTORY ORDER THAT CLAIMANT PAY COSTS: ARTICLE 6 RIGHTS NOT INFRINGED

July 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Costs, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Khokan v Nirjhor [2024] EWHC 1872 (KB) Mrs Justice Hill granted the defendant’s application for a peremptory order following the claimant’s failure to pay costs ordered against him at an interlocutory hearing.  The judge refused the claimant’s application for…

"UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE" NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: "IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO"

“UNNECESSARILY ARGUMENTATIVE OR WASTEFUL CORRESPONDENCE” NOT COUNTENANCED IN COSTS BUDGETING: “IT TAKES TWO TO TANGO”

July 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content

The post earlier this morning on “intemperate” comments in court documents and correspondence reminded me that I meant to highlight a particular aspect of the  judgment in Pan NOx Emissions Litigations [2024] EWHC 1728 (KB).   The judgment highlights that unnecessarily argumentative…

WRITING INFLAMMATORY THINGS IN COURT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: IT NEVER, EVER, HELPS

WRITING INFLAMMATORY THINGS IN COURT DOCUMENTS AND CORRESPONDENCE: IT NEVER, EVER, HELPS

July 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

We are looking at the judgment of HHJ Edward Hess in  TM v KM [2022] EWFC 155 for two reasons: firstly the costs involved; secondly the judge’s observations about the unattractiveness of putting personal pejorative remarks in court documents.   There…

CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE, EVIDENCE AND DISCLOSURE: WHEN THE JUDGE FINDS THAT THE MEDICAL NOTES ARE NOT ACCURATE: “A CONTRIVED AND FALSE PIECE OF EVIDENCE”

July 18, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Clinical Negligence, Disclosure, Members Content

In Biggadike v El Farra & Anor [2024] EWHC 1688 (KB) HHJ Carmel Wall (sitting as a High Court Judge) found that annotations made to medical records were not, in fact, contemporaneous.  She rejected the second defendant’s evidence based on…

COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT'S COSTS:  A POINT OR TWO ABOUT "CLIENT'S" SUBMISSIONS

COST BITES 163: NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL RESPONDENT’S COSTS: A POINT OR TWO ABOUT “CLIENT’S” SUBMISSIONS

July 9, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In  McAteer v Hat & Mitre & Ors (Re Consequential Matters) [2024] EWHC 1746 (Ch) Sir Anthony Mann (sitting as a High Court Judge) dismissed the unsuccessful appellant’s application that the respondent’s costs be reduced.  There were also some important…

WHEN SHOULD A PART 20 DEFENDANT BE LIABLE TO PAY THE PART 20 CLAIMANT'S COSTS OF DEFENDING THE MAIN ACTION? THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

WHEN SHOULD A PART 20 DEFENDANT BE LIABLE TO PAY THE PART 20 CLAIMANT’S COSTS OF DEFENDING THE MAIN ACTION? THE PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED

June 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Costs, Members Content

In Alison Healey (Widow And Executrix of the Estate of Simon Andrew Healey, Deceased) v Mr Daniel McgRath [2024] EWHC 1360 (KB) Dexter Dias KC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered the question of whether it was appropriate…

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

THE REAL DANGER OF LAWYERS GETTING INVOLVED IN THE JOINT STATEMENT OF EXPERTS: IT IS WRONG AND IT IS COSTLY: A CASE THAT ILLUSTRATES THE POINT

May 23, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In  Glover & Anor v Fluid Structural Engineers & Technical Designers Ltd & Ors [2024] EWHC 1257 (TCC) Mr Simon Lofthouse K.C., sitting as a High Court Judge, considered the issues that arose when a party had tried to influence…

JOINING A SOLICITOR INTO AN APPLICATION, WITH A THREAT OF COSTS - LED TO THE APPLICANTS PAYING £45,000 IN COSTS

JOINING A SOLICITOR INTO AN APPLICATION, WITH A THREAT OF COSTS – LED TO THE APPLICANTS PAYING £45,000 IN COSTS

May 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Costs, Members Content

The case of Tonstate Group Ltd & Ors v Wojakowski & Anor [2024] EWHC 1196 (Ch) is a real world example of the dangers of joining a litigant’s firm of solicitors in an application, threatening to seek costs against them. …

MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

MAKING ALLEGATIONS OF DISHONESTY DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO AN ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: BUT IT MIGHT DO: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

May 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to both Kevin Latham and Andrew Buchan for pointing out the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Thakkar & Ors v Mican & Anor [2024] EWCA Civ 552. The court held that a judge had acted…

REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024

REDUCING THE RISKS OF ADVERSE COSTS ORDERS IN CIVIL LITIGATION: WEBINAR 20th MAY 2024

May 13, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Webinar

A costs order against your client is always a painful event.  This webinar looks at the best and safest means of litigating to avoid costs orders against a claimant. It covers areas relating to extensions of time, relief from sanctions…

PROCEDURE, DAMAGES, LIABILITY, COSTS AND LIMITATION: A SERIES OF WEBINARS THIS YEAR AIMING TO HELP AVOID OR DEAL WITH PROBLEMS IN LITIGATION

PROCEDURE, DAMAGES, LIABILITY, COSTS AND LIMITATION: A SERIES OF WEBINARS THIS YEAR AIMING TO HELP AVOID OR DEAL WITH PROBLEMS IN LITIGATION

April 18, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Sanctions, Service of the claim form, Striking out, Webinar, Witness statements

The issues arising from many of the cases looked at on this blog are being considered in a series of webinars starting later this month.  The webinars cover  many of the problem areas of litigation:  what to do when things…

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

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

April 8, 2024 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Members Content

Recent social media interest in a post I first wrote in April 2017 has led me to repeat it. The post concerned an aspect the Supreme Court decision in Times -v- Flood [2017] UKSC 33 that did not made the…

COST BITES 139: A CLAIMANT WAS NOT AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN SOLICITORS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU  BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

COST BITES 139: A CLAIMANT WAS NOT AWARDED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN SOLICITORS: WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU BURY YOUR HEAD IN THE SAND

March 27, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Personal Injury, Wasted Costs

The judgment of Deputy Master Grimshaw in  Al Tarboush v Cassam [2024] EWHC 639 (KB) shows two things: (i) the limitations of the wasted costs procedure; (ii) the major procedural problems that can arise in the course of a case…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION: LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

THE DANGERS OF SERVING A NOTICE OF NON-ADMISSION: LEADS TO INDEMNITY COSTS BEING AWARDED

February 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

Another aspect of the judgment in Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) was the defendant’s conduct in serving a notice of non-admission.  Service of the notice led to considerable extra costs being incurred. …

PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT

PART 36, WITNESS STATEMENTS, INDEMNITY COSTS AND CONDUCT: READ ALL ABOUT IT

February 14, 2024 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In Duke of Sussex & Ors v MGN Ltd (Re Costs) [2024] EWHC 274 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt made some complex costs orders in relation to the litigation.  However the fundamental point was that parties that the claimants that failed…

A DEFENDANT CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEBARRING ORDER: AN APPLICATION SOUNDLY REFUSED

A DEFENDANT CANNOT SIMPLY SEEK TO SET ASIDE THE CONSEQUENCES OF A DEBARRING ORDER: AN APPLICATION SOUNDLY REFUSED

January 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

In Al Saud v Gibbs [2024] EWHC 123 (Comm) Mr Justice Calver refused a defendant’s application to set aside a debarring order so that they could be involved in the trial of the action.  The judgment contains important observations on…

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 5: ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE COURT "IN TERROREM" WERE NOT WELCOME

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 5: ATTEMPTS TO PUT THE COURT “IN TERROREM” WERE NOT WELCOME

January 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

In March 2019 I wrote about the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB), the post noted that  “parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the…

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 4: THE POST OFFICE'S ATTEMPT TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIMANT'S EVIDENCE AND ITS CLAIM TO HAVE "SUPERNATURAL POWERS"

MR BATES AND THE POST OFFICE 4: THE POST OFFICE’S ATTEMPT TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIMANT’S EVIDENCE AND ITS CLAIM TO HAVE “SUPERNATURAL POWERS”

January 12, 2024 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

On March 16 2019 this blog had three separate posts on the Post Office case.  The post repeated here gives an example of the Post Office’s  extremely “robust” strategy.  It attempted to strike out a large part of the claimants’…

← Previous 1 … 5 6 7 … 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.