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 8
"SUCCESSFUL" CLAIMANT RECOVERS 60% OF HIS COSTS BUT PAYS THE COSTS OF TRIAL: ISSUED BASED COSTS ORDERS CONSIDERED

“SUCCESSFUL” CLAIMANT RECOVERS 60% OF HIS COSTS BUT PAYS THE COSTS OF TRIAL: ISSUED BASED COSTS ORDERS CONSIDERED

August 3, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

The vast majority of people who read the cases discussed in this blog will (I would wager a bet) often be thinking “Was there a Part 36 offer?” “What happened about costs?” We can get a glimpse into these issues…

"INTEMPERATE DEBATE" IN LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE: A REVIEW OF THE GUIDANCE AND CASES

“INTEMPERATE DEBATE” IN LEGAL CORRESPONDENCE: A REVIEW OF THE GUIDANCE AND CASES

July 16, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

The judgment yesterday in Collier & Ors v Bennett [2020] EWHC 1884 (QB) contained some judicial observations as to “intemperate debate” in correspondence.  This provides an opportunity to review guidance and judicial observations on this topic. THE CASE The judge…

ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL BIAS REJECTED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

ALLEGATIONS OF JUDICIAL BIAS REJECTED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

July 6, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Members Content

In Ameyaw v McGoldrick & Ors [2020] EWHC 1787 (QB)  Mrs Justice Steyn refused an application that she recuse herself.  The first part of the judgment summarises the law in relation to bias when the judge knows the counsel involved….

"OUR CASE WAS SO HOPELESS YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT": LOSING PARTY SHOULD PAY THE COSTS OF CLAIMANTS PURSUING SPECULATIVE CLAIM: YOU CAN'T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT

“OUR CASE WAS SO HOPELESS YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT”: LOSING PARTY SHOULD PAY THE COSTS OF CLAIMANTS PURSUING SPECULATIVE CLAIM: YOU CAN’T HAVE YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT

July 3, 2020 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert today in  Bailey & Anorv Glaxosmithkline UK Ltd [2020] EWHC 1766 (QB) reflected the normal rule that the losing party should pay the costs of an action.  In this case the losing party was…

INACCURATE TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT AUTHENTIC: HIGH COURT DECISION

INACCURATE TRANSCRIPTS WERE NOT AUTHENTIC: HIGH COURT DECISION

June 26, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content

One reliable element in most litigation is a transcript of a judgment. In Ghassemian v de Beaumont & Anor [2020] EWHC 1642 (Ch) Mr Justice Birss had cause to question the accuracy of a transcript of his own judgment. “The…

FARMER -v- THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LANCASHIRE: COSTS DISALLOWED IN FULL: FULL JUDGMENT NOW AVAILABLE

FARMER -v- THE CHIEF CONSTABLE OF LANCASHIRE: COSTS DISALLOWED IN FULL: FULL JUDGMENT NOW AVAILABLE

June 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I wrote yesterday about the two useful articles on the case of  Farmer v The Chief Constable of Lancashire [2019] EWHC B18 (Costs). The full judgment is now available on BAILLI. “Anybody around this table being of the costs persuasion…

WHEN MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT LEADS TO NO AWARD OF COSTS

WHEN MISCONDUCT ON ASSESSMENT LEADS TO NO AWARD OF COSTS

June 22, 2020 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

It is illuminating to read two reports of the case of Farmer -v- the Chief Constable of Lancashire, where a party’s conduct on assessment led to no award of costs being made. Indeed the claimant was ordered to pay the…

AN EXPERT WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED

AN EXPERT WITH A CONFLICT OF INTEREST: SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN INSTRUCTED

June 18, 2020 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

I am giving a webinar on the 29th June 2020 on the Perils and Pitfalls of Expert Evidence.  I have not found that there is any shortage of material.  That material is added to in the judgment of Mr Justice…

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE, ALLEGATIONS OF MALINGERING AND INDEMNITY COSTS (AGAINST THE DEFENDANT)

SURVEILLANCE EVIDENCE, ALLEGATIONS OF MALINGERING AND INDEMNITY COSTS (AGAINST THE DEFENDANT)

June 16, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

I had no sooner finished a webinar about surveillance evidence this afternoon when I received an email and a copy of a case from solicitor Steve Evans.* The judgment of  HHJ Yelton (sitting in the High Court) in Kilbey -v-…

COVID REPEATS 46: IF YOU CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO CONDUCT YOUR CLIENT'S LITIGATION - THEN JUST MAKE IT ALL UP

COVID REPEATS 46: IF YOU CAN’T BE BOTHERED TO CONDUCT YOUR CLIENT’S LITIGATION – THEN JUST MAKE IT ALL UP

June 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Committal proceedings, Conduct, Members Content

Of all the many cases that have featured on this blog the judgment in  Islamic Investments Company of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd -v- Symphony Gems NV & others [2014] EWHC 377 3777 (Comm) is the one that I found hardest to…

COVID REPEATS 45: WE DON'T CARE WHAT THE JUDGE ORDERED WE ARE GOING TO PUT WHAT WE WANT INTO THIS ORDER

COVID REPEATS 45: WE DON’T CARE WHAT THE JUDGE ORDERED WE ARE GOING TO PUT WHAT WE WANT INTO THIS ORDER

June 7, 2020 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

There are many strange examples of conduct reported on this blog.  One example is in  Webb Resolutions Ltd v JV Ltd (t/a Shepherd Chartered Surveyors) [2013] EWHC 509 (TCC). Put simply a judge made an order at a hearing, one…

INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED WHERE DEFENDANT ASKED FOR JSM BUT MADE NO OFFER: "A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY"

INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED WHERE DEFENDANT ASKED FOR JSM BUT MADE NO OFFER: “A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY”

June 3, 2020 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

On the Kings  Chambers website there is a report, and transcript, of the decision in EAXB v. University Hospitals of Leicester NHS Trust: 4-8th November 2019 and 6th January 2020. The report is of a case  where the claimant was successful…

THE SOLICITOR'S DUTY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT

THE SOLICITOR’S DUTY TO REVIEW THE DOCUMENTS IN LITIGATION: AN INTERESTING POSTSCRIPT

April 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content

There is an interesting postcript to the judgment of  Jon Turner Q.C. (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) in Square Global Ltd v Leonard [2020] EWHC 1008 (QB. “It is fundamental that the client must not make the selection…

EXPERT'S CONDUCT DID NOT LEAD TO EVIDENCE BEING DISALLOWED: CLAIMANT'S CASE REMAINS ON TRACK

EXPERT’S CONDUCT DID NOT LEAD TO EVIDENCE BEING DISALLOWED: CLAIMANT’S CASE REMAINS ON TRACK

February 26, 2020 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Conduct, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Blackpool Borough Council v Volkerfitzpatrick Ltd and Range Roofing and Cladding Ltd & Ors [2020] EWHC 387 (TCC)   HHJ Davies (sitting as a High Court judge) carried out a detailed consideration of the conduct of an expert when considering,…

APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT AND THE DUTY OF CANDOUR: THE JUDGE MUST SEE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ADVERSE TO YOUR CASE

APPLICATIONS TO THE COURT AND THE DUTY OF CANDOUR: THE JUDGE MUST SEE DOCUMENTS THAT ARE ADVERSE TO YOUR CASE

February 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Injunctions, Members Content, Witness statements

In Short & Ors, R (On the Application Of) v Police Misconduct Tribunal & Anor [2020] EWHC 385 (Admin)  Mr Justice Saini issued a warning about the duty of candour owed to the court, particularly on a without notice application….

CLAIMANT'S MEDICAL EXPERT ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT'S COSTS: EXPERTS PLEASE NOTE (EXPERTS' INSURERS NOTE CAREFULLY)

CLAIMANT’S MEDICAL EXPERT ORDERED TO PAY DEFENDANT’S COSTS: EXPERTS PLEASE NOTE (EXPERTS’ INSURERS NOTE CAREFULLY)

February 13, 2020 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Thimmaya -v- Lancashire NHS Foundation Trust (30th January 2020, Manchester County Court) HHJ Claire Evans ordered that a medical expert pay a significant part of the defendant’s costs when she found that the expert had failed in his duties…

INDEMNITY COSTS ON THE GROUNDS OF CONDUCT: FAILURE TO BEAT A DEFENDANT'S PART 36 OFFER: A GARDEN THAT GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE...

INDEMNITY COSTS ON THE GROUNDS OF CONDUCT: FAILURE TO BEAT A DEFENDANT’S PART 36 OFFER: A GARDEN THAT GETS MORE AND MORE EXPENSIVE…

February 6, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Part 36

The Court of Appeal decision in Lejonvarn v Burgess & Anor [2020] EWCA Civ 114 is the second time this case, about a garden, has been on appeal.   On this occasion the Court of Appeal held that the claimants’ conduct…

GDPR AND THE CIVIL LITIGATOR (1) : USEFUL LINKS FOR LITIGATORS

GDPR AND THE CIVIL LITIGATOR (1) : USEFUL LINKS FOR LITIGATORS

February 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Disclosure, Members Content, Useful links

The post earlier this week that highlighted the fact that an applicant had spent £40,000 unsuccessfully trying to obtain documents that would have been freely available under GDPR has led me to contemplate a series of articles on litigators and…

REDACTING DOCUMENTS: MAY CAUSE ENQUIRIES TO BE MADE AND EXPLANATIONS MAY NEED TO BE GIVEN

REDACTING DOCUMENTS: MAY CAUSE ENQUIRIES TO BE MADE AND EXPLANATIONS MAY NEED TO BE GIVEN

January 24, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

One other aspect of the judgment of HHJ Lethem in Ivanoy -v- Lubble (Central London County Court 17th January 2020) is in the orders made after the judgment. It concerns the redaction of documents.   THE CASE The primary issue in the…

"THEY LOST": THE DANGERS OF OVERCONFIDENCE IN CORRESPONDENCE

“THEY LOST”: THE DANGERS OF OVERCONFIDENCE IN CORRESPONDENCE

December 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content

“Never write anything you will be embarrassed by the court reading” is an essential piece of advice for all lawyers (and one I suspect we have all, occasionally, breached). An example can be seen in the opening lines of the…

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE - THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT...)

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT…)

December 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Another certainty about writing about civil procedure is that every year will bring a batch of applications relating to sanctions and relief from sanctions.  This year has been no different.  We start off (from the end of last year) with…

ARGUE A WEAK CASE ON EACH AND EVERY POINT, GET INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST YOU

ARGUE A WEAK CASE ON EACH AND EVERY POINT, GET INDEMNITY COSTS AWARDED AGAINST YOU

December 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In Suez Fortune Investments Ltd & Anor v Talbot Underwriting Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3300 (Comm) Mr Justice Teare held that a claimant, who had pursued a weak case in a robust manner, should pay indemnity costs.   There is…

REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: "THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF"

REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL: “THE SANCTION WAS WHOLLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND IT WAS WRONG NOT TO GRANT RELIEF”

October 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) Mrs Justice Steyn overturned a decision refusing relief from sanctions.  The Appellant had made payments by cheque rather than by bank transfer.   It is also an important example of the pitfalls caused…

STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 1: "OWN YOUR MISTAKES"

STAYING SANE AS A LITIGATOR 1: “OWN YOUR MISTAKES”

October 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Conduct, Members Content

Today I am speaking at the Motor Accidents Solicitors Society annual conference on the topic of “Avoiding a Breakdown – Helping Your Clients by Helping Yourself”.  I thought this would be a good day to start a new series on…

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT'S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT'S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE

WHY WOULD ANYONE WANT TO RECORD THEIR MEETING WITH AN EXPERT WITNESS? TWO EXAMPLES WHERE THE COURT’S FOUND THAT AN EXPERT’S STATEMENT OF AN INTERVIEW WAS UNRELIABLE

October 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

An earlier post dealt with the case of Mustard v Flower & Ors [2019] EWHC 2623 (QB) and the claimant’s decision to record her appointments with the defendant’s medical experts.  The issue of what, precisely, was said to an expert can…

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

COURT OF APPEAL REFUSES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER FOR INDEMNITY COSTS: PARTIES WHO ARE JOINED TO A SPECULATIVE ENTERPRISE IN LITIGATION SHOULD EVALUATE THEIR POSITION WITH CARE

October 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content

 In  Ford & Anor v Bennett & Anor [2019] EWCA Civ 1604 the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against a trial judge’s decision to award indemnity costs.  The judgment contains a lesson to “additional parties” to litigation. “Parties who…

LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 3: THE SOLICITOR (GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS) HAD BECOME FAR TOO CLOSE TO THE CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE

LAWYERS GIVING EVIDENCE 3: THE SOLICITOR (GIVING EVIDENCE WHILST REPRESENTING HIS CLIENTS) HAD BECOME FAR TOO CLOSE TO THE CASE TO BE OBJECTIVE

September 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Witness statements

In the third post on the dangers of lawyers giving evidence we are looking at the judgment of Recorder Monty QC in   Afia v Mellor & Anor [2013] EW Misc 23 (CC). The only witness called for the defendants was…

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)

WITNESS STATEMENTS: THE DANGERS OF INADVERTENTLY MISLEADING THE COURT: CHECK BEFORE YOU ASSERT (ALSO A MESSAGE HERE FOR EXPERTS)

September 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The judgment of Master Clark in Baynton-Williams v Baynton-Williams [2019] EWHC 2179 (Ch) contains a number of important lessons : (i) for anyone preparing a witness statement to be careful not to inadvertently mislead the court; (ii) for experts – on…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 53: PART 36 AND COSTS AFTER THE COURT HAS LIMITED THE BUDGET TO COURT FEES

July 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

This may be an ambitious subject for the back to basics series. However here I want to look at the situation where a party has failed to file their costs budget timeously and the budget has been confined to court…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 51: BULLOCK AND SANDERSON ORDERS: COSTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE DEFENDANTS

July 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

When writing the previous post about a Bullock order it struck me that there may be some people not quite certain of what a “Bullock order ” or “Sanderson order” is. This gives rise to a need to explain those…

THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH

THE TRIAL JUDGE COULD SAY BULLOCKS TO THE COST ORDER: ON APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CLAIMANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO BULLISH

July 8, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content

In  Fouladi v Darout Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 1674 (Ch) Mr Justice Henry Carr refused an appeal against the making of a “Bullock” order in relation to the costs of a fourth defendant.  The claimant, however, was not successful…

PART 36 OFFER WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ONE AND DEFENDANT HAD TO PAY COSTS

PART 36 OFFER WAS NOT AN EFFECTIVE ONE AND DEFENDANT HAD TO PAY COSTS

July 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

In  Bull v Desporte [2019] EWHC 1669 (QB) Mr Justice Knowles rejected the defendant’s argument that a Part 36 offer meant that she did not have to pay costs. THE CASE The claimant succeeded in an action for misuse of…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 50: THE POSTS SO FAR

July 3, 2019 · by gexall · in Admissions, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Credibility of experts, Experts, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Witness statements

The “back to basics” series has been going since April 2018.  It has covered a surprising amount of topics. From how to draft an application to “litigation wishful thinking”.   Some people have expressed surprise and how “basic” some points are…

WITHOUT NOTICE INJUNCTIONS 1: CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION GOES DOWN THE PAN

WITHOUT NOTICE INJUNCTIONS 1: CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN INJUNCTION GOES DOWN THE PAN

June 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Injunctions, Members Content, Witness statements

The judgment in Brothers Enterprises Ltd v New World Hospitality UK Ltd [2017] EWHC 2455 (Ch) has only recently arrived on BAILLI. However it is a case that shows the importance of disclosure in relation to without notice injunctions.  What…

ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A "SINGULARLY DIM VIEW" OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

ATTEMPTING TO OBTAIN EXTENSIONS OF TIME BY INFORMAL EMAIL : THE COURT TAKES A “SINGULARLY DIM VIEW” OF ATTEMPTS BY PARTIES TO CIRCUMVENT THE RULES (OH, AND BUNDLES AGAIN)

June 10, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Access to justice, Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Case Management, Conduct, Extensions of time, Members Content

In Saint Benedict Land Trust Ltd v London Borough of Camden & Anor [2019] EWHC 1433 (Ch) (17 May 2019) Mr Justice Marcus Smith took a very dim view indeed of an attempt by a litigant to obtain an extension…

ATTEMPTS TO HARASS THE TRIAL JUDGE IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION

ATTEMPTS TO HARASS THE TRIAL JUDGE IS A CRIMINAL ACTIVITY: DIVISIONAL COURT DECISION

May 26, 2019 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Conduct, Members Content

In  Hilson v McCarthy [2019] EWHC 1110 (Admin) the Divisional Court confirmed that the appellants had harassed a judge unlawfully and amounted to harassment. It is an important case for anyone involved in the legal system.   “in examining the nature…

WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES

WHY THE LYING LITIGANT SHOULD FRET: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION ON CONTEMPT: WHEN FACEBOOK FLATLY CONTRADICTS PART 18 REPLIES

May 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Committal proceedings, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

In  Zurich Insurance Plc v Romaine [2019] EWCA Civ 851 allowed an appeal by an insurer so that an application for committal for contempt of court can proceed.  No substantive findings of fact have been made. The judgment shows that…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON'T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS "FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER"

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 44: JUST DON’T WRITE RUDE THINGS : LANGUAGE THAT IS “FAR REMOVED FROM THE PROFESSIONAL COURTESY THAT SOLICITORS ARE EXPECTED TO SHOW EACH OTHER”

May 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content

Don’t write rude things.  Not even in internal emails or texts. One day it may (and probably will) come back to haunt you.  Read the judgment of HHJ Melissa Clarke in  ATB Sales Ltd v Rich Energy Ltd & Anor…

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN "INTERIM" APPLICATION

COURT COULD NOT GO OUTSIDE FIXED COSTS REGIME: HOWEVER AN ORDER SEEKING INDEMNITY COSTS IS NOT AN “INTERIM” APPLICATION

May 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Fixed Costs, Members Content

I am grateful to Matthew Hoe from Taylor Rose    for sending me a copy of the judgment of Mrs Justice Carr in Parsa -v- D.S. Smith PLC (25th March 2019)  Parsa v D.S. Smith PLC – Approved Judgment -…

A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE

A CASE WHERE LAWYERS BECOME RESPONDENTS TO THE ACTION WHERE A PARTY IS SEEKING TO RECOVER COSTS: ALSO WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN WITHOUT PREJUDICE CORRESPONDENCE

April 24, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

Technically speaking, the judgment of Mrs Justice Andrews in Willers v Joyce & Ors [2019] EWHC 937 (Ch) is about the “without prejudice” rule. However the point that has caught everyone’s attention is the fact that lawyers, previously  acting for…

NOT COMPLYING WITH DIRECTIONS OR REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE - AND THEN BLAMING THE OTHER SIDE: IT DOES YOU NO CREDIT

NOT COMPLYING WITH DIRECTIONS OR REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE – AND THEN BLAMING THE OTHER SIDE: IT DOES YOU NO CREDIT

April 2, 2019 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Statements of Case

There are several matters of general interest in the judgment of Mrs Justice Pepperall in Essex County Council v UBB Waste (Essex) Ltd [2019] EWHC 819 (TCC) (02 April 2019).  Here we look at the dangers of simply failing to…

LAWYERS: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THINGS HAVE GONE WRONG? MEANINGFUL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO KNOW (AND CARE): WHEN YOU THINK SOMETHING IS HITTING THE FAN

LAWYERS: WHAT DO YOU DO WHEN THINGS HAVE GONE WRONG? MEANINGFUL ADVICE FROM PEOPLE WHO KNOW (AND CARE): WHEN YOU THINK SOMETHING IS HITTING THE FAN

April 1, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Well being

Last night I did a post on using social media to help young lawyers (and some not so young lawyers). Specifically on how it is possible to gather information and advice from around the professions (and indeed around the world)….

ADVICE FOR THE ASPIRANT OR TYRO LAWYER: WHEN TWITTER CAN BE YOUR FRIEND (IN FACT YOU CAN HAVE DOZENS OF FRIENDS GIVING YOU ADVICE)

ADVICE FOR THE ASPIRANT OR TYRO LAWYER: WHEN TWITTER CAN BE YOUR FRIEND (IN FACT YOU CAN HAVE DOZENS OF FRIENDS GIVING YOU ADVICE)

March 26, 2019 · by gexall · in Members Content, Uncategorized

This is a post started almost by accident.  It started with a tweet when a barrister was happy to be sitting on her sofa, for a change and said this is the reality of legal life.  It led to dozens…

"CAN SOLICITORS BE RUDE IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OPPOSING CLIENT"? A RECAP OF ADVICE ON CONDUCT AND COURTESY

“CAN SOLICITORS BE RUDE IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE TO THE OPPOSING CLIENT”? A RECAP OF ADVICE ON CONDUCT AND COURTESY

March 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content

“Can solicitors be rude in their correspondence to the opposing client.” This was a search term that led someone to this blog earlier today.  We don’t know whether this search was  from a solicitor proposing to be rude, or the…

WHO HAS WON AND WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS? WHEN “WHO PAYS THE CHEQUE” IS NOT A SUFFICIENT ANSWER

March 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content

In  Hamad M Aldrees & Partners v Rotex Europe Ltd [2019] EWHC 526 (TCC)  Sir Antony Edwards-Stuart considered a case where it was far from clear that the “winning” party should recover its costs,  The case is useful in that it…

CASE MANAGEMENT, "RELEVANCE" AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT "IN TERROREM": MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Conduct, Members Content

I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual.   This part…

EXPERTS WHO CAN'T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN'T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL...

EXPERTS WHO CAN’T REPORT IN TIME: BETTER READ THIS: IF YOU CAN’T REPORT ON TIME PROBABLY BEST NOT TO TAKE INSTRUCTIONS AT ALL…

March 12, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In X and Y (Delay : Professional Conduct of Expert) [2019] EWFC B9 HH Clifford Bellamy (sitting as a Deputy Circuit Judge) made some observations in relation to the role of the expert, particularly when that expert cannot report timeously.  The…

ALLEGED "MISCONDUCT" DURING ASSESSMENT PROCESS DID NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED OR REDUCED: ATE PREMIUM WAS REASONABLE

ALLEGED “MISCONDUCT” DURING ASSESSMENT PROCESS DID NOT LEAD TO COSTS BEING DISALLOWED OR REDUCED: ATE PREMIUM WAS REASONABLE

March 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Conduct, Members Content, Witness statements

In  Murray v Oxford University Hospitals NHS Trust [2019] EWHC 539 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart rejected an argument that mistakes made by a claimant during the assessment of costs process should have led to costs being disallowed or reduced. The…

THE DANGERS OF TAKING A ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENT - A RECAP

THE DANGERS OF TAKING A ONE-SIDED WITNESS STATEMENT – A RECAP

February 23, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

A number of recent posts have looked at difficulties caused the the way in which evidence was collected and witness statements drafted.  The taking of one-sided witness statements led to major difficulties for the party who were attempting to rely…

WITNESS EVIDENCE: GRAPPLE WITH THOSE DIFFICULTIES: KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CASE: OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO COST YOU (ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF AN OFFER)

WITNESS EVIDENCE: GRAPPLE WITH THOSE DIFFICULTIES: KNOW WHETHER YOU CAN PROVE YOUR CASE: OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO COST YOU (ALSO THE IMPORTANCE OF AN OFFER)

February 19, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Witness statements

The previous post looked at the witness evidence of some of the claimants against one of the defendants in the case of Zagora Management Ltd & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Ors [2019] EWHC 140 (TCC).  Here we look at the…

← Previous 1 … 7 8 9 … 11 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
  • THE GUIDELINE HOURLY RATES: SEE THEM HERE: UPDATED FOR 2026 RATES
  • GRIFFITHS -v- TUI: SUPREME COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT: THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR: POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE EXPERT

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.