Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Construction of Statutes
THIRD PARTY (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) ACT 2010 IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE: PARLIAMENT COULD EASILY HAVE SAID OTHERWISE

THIRD PARTY (RIGHTS AGAINST INSURERS) ACT 2010 IS NOT RETROSPECTIVE: PARLIAMENT COULD EASILY HAVE SAID OTHERWISE

July 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Redman -v- Zurich Insurance PLC [2017] EWHC 1919 (QB) Mr Justice Turner held that the provisions of the Third Party (Rights Against Insurers)  Act 2010 are not retrospective. “If Parliament had intended the 2010 regime retrospectively to apply to…

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 12.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHAT HAS CIVIL LITIGATION BRIEF EVER DONE FOR US? PERSONAL INJURY INJURY LAWYERS AND ISSUES OF LIABILITY
  • THE SRA CANNOT COMPEL A SOLICITOR TO DISCLOSE A CLIENT’S PRIVILEGED DOCUMENTS: THE FUNDAMENTAL IMPORTANCE OF LEGAL PROFESSIONAL PRIVILEGE
  • PROPORTIONALITY IN LITIGATION (1): A TEN POINT GUIDE FOR CIVIL LITIGATORS: A REVIEW OF CASE LAW AND POSTS OVER THE PAST 13 YEARS
  • COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: “THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION”
  • COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM

Top Posts

WHEN CHAT GPT DRAFTED A "SKELETON" ARGUMENT - 300 PAGES AND 132,000 WORDS LONG: THE LITIGANT RETAINS RESPONSIBILITY AND MUST COMPLY WITH THE RULES
COST BITES 455: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY ON WHETHER A CLIENT IS ENTITLED TO RAISE PART 18 QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE SOLICITOR OBTAINED COMMISSION ON AN ATE PREMIUM
COST BITES 456: LET US ALL REMEMBER THAT THE DISPUTE THAT REACHED THE COURT OF APPEAL TODAY WAS OVER THE PRINCELY SUM OF £25: "THE CLIENT HAS NEVER HAD ANY REAL ECONOMIC INTEREST IN THE PURSUIT OF THIS COSTLY LITIGATION"
SERVICE POINTS 54: THE CLAIMANT FAILED TO SERVE A SEALED CLAIM FORM IN TIME: THERE WAS NO OBLIGATION ON A DEFENDANT TO MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 7.7: THE ACTION BITES THE DUST
WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: THOSE WHO DRAFTED THE WITNESS STATEMENTS "HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THE ROLE OF THE WITNESS STATEMENT IS": A USEFUL CHECKLIST AND LINKS TO KEEP YOU ON THE STRAIGHT AND NARROW

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.