Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » costs » Page 23

JUDGE USES COSTS BUDGET TO ASSESS COSTS AT THE END OF A TRIAL: THE RELEVANCE OF THE BUDGET & WHEN SHOULD THE COURT GO OUTSIDE IT?

November 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Sony Communications International AB -v- SSH Communications Security Corporation [2016] EWHC 2985 (Pat) Mr Roger Wyand QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) used the costs budget to carry out an assessment of the costs at the end…

PROPORTIONATE COST ORDERS WHEN COSTS ARE £8 MILLION AND £10 MILLION APIECE: HIGH COURT DECISION

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Conduct, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

We have already looked at the decision in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496 (TCC) in relation to the question of proportionality. However the judgment contains much more of interest in relation to costs. It provides an…

PROPORTIONALITY DOES NOT AFFECT A PROPORTIONATE COSTS ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

There are many aspects of the judgment in Amey LG Limited -v- Cumbria County Council [2016] EWHC 2496 (TCC) that are of interest to readers of this blog.  Here I want to explore the judgment in relation to proportionality. “The…

THIRD PARTY FUNDING: YOU WANT THE PROFITS YOU TAKE THE RISKS: EXCALIBUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

November 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Excalibur Ventures LLC -v- Texas Keystone LLC [2016] EWCA Civ 1144 the Court of Appeal confirmed that commercial funders are liable to indemnify on the indemnity costs basis. “I can see no principled basis upon which the funder can…

THE DANGER OF NOT REPLYING TO CORRESPONDENCE: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST DEFENDANTS (& THE NEED FOR CO-OPERATION WHEN INSTRUCTING EXPERTS)

November 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Costs, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgement of Chief Master Marsh in UPL Europe Limited -v- Agchemaccess Chemicals Limted [2016] EWHC 2898 (Ch) provides an object lesson in the dangers of failing to reply to correspondence. The judgment also contains important observations about need for…

QADER 2: REMAINING PROBLEMS AND ISSUES: THE CONTINUING DEBATE

November 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

The post yesterday on the Qader decision has led to a large number of comments.  These are easy to overlook.  I have placed the comments here since these outline the issues that remain unresolved. I have added some sub-headings, but…

QADER IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: FIXED COSTS NO LONGER APPLY TO ACTIONS ALLOCATED TO THE MULTI TRACK

November 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

Perhaps the most surprising thing about the decision of the Court of Appeal in Qadar -v- Esure [2016] EWCA Civ 1109 is the route that had to be taken to get to the result.  The Court of Appeal added, to…

TALES FROM COSTS LAW CONFERENCE IV: PROPORTIONALITY – A LITIGATOR'S SURVIVAL GUIDE V

November 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

The issue of proportionality raised its head more than once at the recent ACL conference.  However I addressed the issue directly (or perhaps obliquely). My central argument being that proportionality requires a fundamentally different approach to litigation. Further there is…

TALES FROM COSTS LAW CONFERENCE III: SATELLITE NAVIGATION, MERRIX AND COSTS BUDGETING

November 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

One issue discussed at the Association of Costs Lawyers in Manchester on the 24th October  was the decision in Merrix -v- Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust [2016] EWHC B28 (QB). The question of whether a detailed assessment is needed…

PART 36: OFFER DID NOT COVER COSTS OF ADJUDICATIONS

November 14, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In  Wes Futures Limited -v- Allen Wilson Construction Limited [2016] EWHC 2863 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson considered the terms of an offer from the claimant that the Defendant accepted 10 months afterwards.  Curiously it was the claimant that was arguing…

A DISPOSAL IS A "TRIAL": COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY

November 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

Several people have kindly sent me details of the Court of Appeal decision in Bird -v- Acorn Group Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 1096.  The Court considered whether a matter listed for a disposal under the EL/PL Protocol was a “trial”…

HOURLY RATES, SUCCESS FEES, RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS – ALL IN ONE CASE

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

There is a great deal of material covered in the judgment of Master Gordon-Saker in Various Claimants -v- MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B29 (Costs). THE CASE The court was determining various preliminary issues in relation to costs in the “phone…

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN REVISING A BUDGET: AN ACUTE CHANGE OF CASE IS REQUIRED

ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE DIFFICULTY IN REVISING A BUDGET: AN ACUTE CHANGE OF CASE IS REQUIRED

November 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Costs budgeting, Members Content

I am grateful to Michael Davidson from Acumension who has sent me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Hovington in the case of Warner -v- The Pennine Acute Hospital NHS Trust  (Manchester County Court 23rd September 2016) (available…

COSTS MANAGEMENT AND PROPORTIONALITY IN ACTION

November 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

Issues of costs budgeting and proportionality were considered by Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman [2016] CAT 21. It provides an interesting example of the judicial approach to proportionality and costs budgeting. “Proportionality is fundamental to…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FINDING SET ASIDE ON APPEAL

November 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Conduct, Costs, Fundamental Dishonesty, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

The judgment of His Honour Judge Hodge QC in Meadows -v- La Tasca Restaurants Limited [2016]EW Misc B28 (CC) (16 June 2016)  is now available on Bailli.  It contains some important observations about findings of fundamental dishonesty. “In my judgment,…

PROPORTIONALITY AND COSTS: A JUDGMENT ON APPEAL

November 1, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Tui UK Ltd -v- Tickell & Others [2016] EWHC 2741 (QB) Mrs Justice Elisabeth Laing DBE (sitting with Master Leonard as an assessor) dismissed an appeal by the defendants on an argument that the costs…

TALES FROM COSTS LAW CONFERENCE II: THE RISE OF SOLICITOR AND OWN CLIENT COSTS DISPUTES

October 31, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

One of the predictions made by several speakers at the Association of Costs Lawyers conference last week was the likelihood of a rise in the number of solicitor and own client disputes in relation to costs. Clients are now paying…

COSTS BUDGETING: IT'S JUST A PHASE I'M GOING THROUGH

October 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

One advantage of going to conferences is that it usually gives rise to ideas for the blog. So speaking at the Association of Costs Lawyers conference yesterday has given rise to a whole host of issues which will be explored…

PART 36 OFFERS AND COSTS: COSTS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN CONSIDERING WHETHER AN OFFER HAS BEEN "BEATEN"

October 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Transocean Drilling UK Ltd -v- Providence Resources PLC [2016] EWHC 2611 (Comm) Mr Justice Popplewell considered the impact of a Part 36 offer in unusual circumstances.  These circumstances led the court to consider whether the impact of costs should…

WHEN SHOULD A WINNING PARTY PAY THE COSTS OF THE OTHER SIDE?

October 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Hospira UK Limited -v- Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC [2016] EWHC 2661 Pat Mr Justice Henry Carr considered the question of when an “issue based” costs order should be made. “In my view, this apparent dichotomy may be resolved by a…

REASONABLENESS AND PROPORTIONALITY: A DIRECT IMPACT UPON LITIGATION DECISIONS

October 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

I have been writing for some time about the impact of “proportionality” upon the practice of litigation itself.  One example of this can be found in the judgment of Master James in  Briggs & 598 others -v-  First Choice Holidays…

LATE ACCEPTANCE OF CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: TWO CONTRASTING CASES & THE GREAT DEBATE

October 14, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

There is an ongoing debate about whether the Defendant should, or does, face any adverse consequences when a Claimant’s Part 36 offer is accepted late.  I had a recent email from solicitor John McQuater of Atherton Godfrey.   Here I…

A JUDGMENT ON THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN COSTS BUDGETING AND THE ASSESSMENT OF COSTS: MAPPING & SURVEYING THE TERRAIN

October 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In a judgment given today in Merrix -v-Heart of England NHS Foundation Trust Regional Costs Judge District Judge Lumb  (sitting in Birmingham) considered the extent to which the costs budgeting regime fettered the powers and discretion of the costs judge…

CLAIMANT MUST REVEAL IDENTITY OF THIRD PARTY FUNDERS: HIGH COURT DECISION

October 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Members Content, Security for Costs, Third party funding, Uncategorized

In Wall -v- The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC [2016] EWHC 2460 (Comm) (Mr Andrew Baker QC sitting as a High Court Judge) the claimant was ordered to reveal the identity of third party funders. KEY POINTS The court has…

THIS COSTS BUDGETING THING – IT IS NOT THAT IMPORTANT: WELL THINK AGAIN

October 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Disclosure, Members Content, Security for Costs, Uncategorized

There are some important observations made by Mr Justice Roth in Agents’ Mutual Limited -v- Gascoigne Halman Limited [2016] EWHC 2315 (Ch) in relation to both costs budgeting and security for costs. KEY POINTS There is no duty on a…

RECOVERING LITIGATION FUNDING COSTS: A HIGH COURT CASE -BUT ABOUT ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS

October 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Arbitration,, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Professor Dominic Regan and Nicholas Bacon QC for sending me a copy of the decision in Essar Oilfields -v- Norscot [2016] EWHC 2361 (Comm).A decision of His Honour Judge Waksman QC sitting as a Judge of…

COSTS BUDGETING AND LITIGANTS IN PERSON: BUDGETING THE COSTS OF ASSISTANCE AND COUNSEL

September 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The decision today of Chief Master Marsh in Campbell -v- Campbell [2016] EWHC 2237 (Ch) deals with some important issues in relation to costs budgeting, the costs of litigants in person, instructing counsel and the nature of costs budgeting generally. “……

LOOKING AT LITIGATION FROM THE LITIGANT'S VIEWPOINT 2: THE STRESS OF LITIGATION: GUIDANCE AND LINKS

September 12, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Uncategorized, Useful links

The earlier post on looking at litigation from the litigant’s viewpoint led to some interesting comments, on the blog itself; on LinkedIn and on twitter.   It was particularly interesting to hear from lawyers who had been involved in litigation…

PROPORTIONATE COSTS IN A FAMILY CASE: £33,813 REDUCED TO £3,737.50

September 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

In K -v- K [2016] EWHC 2002 (Fam) Mr Justice Macdonald reduced the costs of a successful party to an appeal in a family case. “The stringent test of proportionality in relation to costs incurred applies with equal force in…

QOCS & DISCONTINUANCE: ANOTHER CASE (WHERE THE CLAIMANT WAS SUCCESSFUL)

September 1, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

I am grateful to barrister James Bentley for drawing my attention to the judgment of Mr Recorder Berkley in Magon -v- Royal & Sun Alliance Insurance PLC  (26th February 2016). Another decision in relation to QOCS and discontinuance. The District Judge…

NON-SOLICITOR LITIGATION ENTITIES AND WASTED COSTS: WANT TO BE £102,000 OUT OF POCKET?

August 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized, Wasted Costs, Witness statements

An earlier post looked at the issues relating to litigation being conducted by an non-authorised entity.  In M A Lloyd & Son Ltd -v- PPC International Limited [2016] EWHC 2162 (QB) issues of wasted costs arose in relation to a…

A BLUEPRINT FOR TROUBLE? A CAUTIONARY TALE FOR ANYONE CONSIDERING "ALTERNATIVES" TO SOLICITORS IN LITIGATION

August 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthews in Lyons -v-Kerr-Robinson [2016] EWHC 2137 (Ch) contains a cautionary tale for anyone proposing to use an alternative to solicitors to conduct their litigation.  The defendant in this case used licensed conveyancers. Their charges were…

ANOTHER ROUND IN THE CFA ASSIGNMENT BATTLE: CFA CAN BE ASSIGNED

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Azim -v- Tradwise Insurance Services Limited [2016] EWHC B20 (Costs) Master Leonard found that a conditional fee agreement could properly be assigned. KEY POINTS An assignment of a CFA between solicitors was valid. The validity of an assignment did…

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE: ACTION STAYED: SANITY IS BREAKING OUT

August 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Court fees, Members Content, Uncategorized

There are several interesting issues arising out of the judgment of Master Clark in Lifestyles Equities C.V. -v- Sportsdirect.Com Retail Limited [2016] EWHC 2092.   In particular the fact that the decision in Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015]…

COSTS BUDGETING IS APPROPRIATE AND NECESSARY IN A HIGH VALUE CASE : BUT IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO ORDER A SPLIT TRIAL

August 22, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

In Signia Wealth Limited -v- Marlborough Trust Company Limited [2016] EWHC 2141 (Ch) Chief Master Marsh considered two issues relating to case management: whether costs budgeting should apply and whether a split trial was appropriate. KEY POINTS Costs budgeting A…

APPLICATION TO DISCLOSE THIRD PARTY FUNDER REFUSED

August 7, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Third party funding, Uncategorized, Useful links

The opening passages of the judgment of H.H. Judge Keyser Q.C. in Dawnus Sierra Leone Limited -v- Timis Mining Corporation Limited [2016] EWHC B19 (TCC) deal with the issue of disclosure of details of third party funding. KEY POINTS A…

BILLING YOUR OWN CLIENT: FIVE IMPORTANT LESSONS FROM THE HIGH COURT

August 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

There are number of important lessons to be drawn from the judgment yesterday of Master Gordon-Saker in Rahimian -v- Allan Janes LLP [2016] EWHC B18 (Costs). THE CASE The claimant sought an order that the defendant firm of solicitors deliver…

CLAIMANT ESTOPPED FROM RELYING ON QOCS: THE NEED TO BE ACCURATE

July 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

I am grateful to barrister Matthew White for sending me details and a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Lopez in Price -v- Egbert H Taylor &  Company Limited (16th June 2016).  This is the second judgment in the…

HAS A PART 36 OFFER BEEN BEATEN WHEN THE VALUE OF CURRENCY CHANGES? A HIGH COURT DECISION

July 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The judgment of Mr Justice Leggatt today in Novus Aviation Ltd -v- Alubaf Arab International Bank BSC (c) [2016] EWHC 1937 (Comm) contains some interesting observations on Part 36 offers. KEY POINTS A claimant “beat” its own Part 36 offer…

FAILING TO FILE A COST BUDGET AND REFUSAL TO GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A HARSH LESSON

July 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Clinical Negligence, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

If a litigation solicitor is ever given the job of designing wallpaper here are the three key things that should form the recurring motif. The costs budget is due 21 days before the first case management conference. Where the claim…

YOU CAN BE A TOUGH NEGOTIATOR- YOU CAN ALSO FALL FLAT ON YOUR FACE: HIGH COURT CASE EXAMINED

July 14, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Uncategorized

The law of privilege prevents a close study of the negotiation process in most cases. That is why everyone involved in litigation could benefit from reading the judgment today of Mrs Justice Slade in FPH Law -v- Brown [2016] EWHC…

COSTS BUDGETING – THE KEY DATES: A QUICK REMINDER TO AVOID A SHARP (BUT NOT NECESSARILY SHORT) SHOCK

July 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Court fees, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Uncategorized

You would think that everyone involved in litigation would know that new rules as to cost budgeting came into force on the 6th April 2016. However, judging from some of the blank (and worried) looks I have seen recently when…

WANT TO WORK HARD, WIN AND STILL NOT GET PAID? WHEN THE CFAS DID NOT COVER THE COSTS: BAD NEWS FOR SOLICITORS AND COUNSEL

July 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Warby in Radford -v- Frade [2016] EWHC 1600 (QB) contains an important warning in relation to the construction of CFAs both for solicitors and counsel. KEY POINTS A solicitor entered into a CFA with…

NEW RULES ON COSTS CAPPING

July 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Rule Changes, Uncategorized

New rules (The Civil Procedure (Amendment No.2) Rules 2016 were passed yesterday which amend CPR Part 3 in relation to costs capping. They are of relatively limited ambit, applying only to Judicial Review applications.  They replace protective costs orders in…

SWITCHING FROM LEGAL AID TO CFA: THE SUCCESSFUL APPEAL

July 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

The saga relating to the assessment of costs where a claimant changed from public funding to a conditional fee agreement has been dealt with many times on this blog*.  All of these issues are now dealt with in the judgment…

CLAIMANT'S PART 36 OFFERS: WHEN HAS THE CLAIMANT BEATEN ITS OWN OFFER? AN INTERESTING QUESTION

July 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The judgment of HH Judge Pelling QC in Purrunsing -v- A’Court & Co (a firm) [2016] EWHC 1582 (Ch) considers the impact of interest on a claimant’s Part 36 offer. Should the court simply compare the offer with the sum…

COSTS BUDGETING & DAVID -v- GOLIATH: DOES IT GIVE THE "LITTLE GUY" A CHANCE?

COSTS BUDGETING & DAVID -v- GOLIATH: DOES IT GIVE THE "LITTLE GUY" A CHANCE?

June 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

Costs budgeting remains highly controversial.  One question that is open to debate is – is it useful?  Its utility may be most apparent in cases where the sizes and resources of the litigants are vastly disparate. (Many personal injury lawyers…

PART 36: ADDITIONAL AMOUNTS AND INTEREST

June 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Interest, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

In Bolt Burdon -v- Tariq [2016] EWHC 1507 (QB) Mr Justice Spencer considered the appropriate approach to additional liabilities where a claimant beats its own Part 36 offer and interest was awarded on a contractual basis.  However the judgment appears…

PROVING THINGS 22: DAMAGES, MITIGATION , PART 36 (AND EVEN SOMETHING ABOUT BUNDLES)

June 22, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Bundles, Civil evidence, Damages, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision today in Pawar -v- JSD Haulage Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 551 contains some important lessons in relation to proving damages, mitigation of loss and Part 36 offers. “The fact that a claimant does not mitigate…

WHO WON? CLAIMANTS GET 33% OF THEIR COSTS AFTER TRIAL

WHO WON? CLAIMANTS GET 33% OF THEIR COSTS AFTER TRIAL

June 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Kupeli -v- Cyprus Turkish Airlines [2016] EWHC 1478 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple considered issues relating to costs liability after the trial of a preliminary issue. “….there is a world of difference between a case which…

← Previous 1 … 22 23 24 … 29 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 INSURER’S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 39: ISSUES OVER CORRECT SPANISH ADDRESS DID NOT RENDER SERVICE INVALID
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING “MIXED” SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO…)
  • WHEN A CASE – WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS “UNTENABLE”: HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS “UNTENABLE”: LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE

Top Posts

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHAT TO WEAR TO COURT: "IF YOU ATTEND COURT DRESSED INAPPROPRIATELY, COURT STAFF MAY REFUSE YOU ENTRY"
  • AN INSURER'S ADMISSION BINDS INSURED DEFENDANT EVEN THOUGH INDEMNITY WAS SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN: APPLICATION TO RESILE FROM THAT ADMISSION DISMISSED...
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 71: COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT PERMISSION TO AMEND EVEN THOUGH THE CURRENT CASE WAS "UNTENABLE": LESSONS HERE FOR EVERYONE
  • WHEN A CASE - WEEKS AWAY FROM TRIAL WAS "UNTENABLE": HOW DID WE GET HERE?
  • COST BITES 383: WHO SHOULD PAY THE COSTS FOLLOWING "MIXED" SUCCESS AT A SUMMARY JUDGMENT APPLICATION? WHAT IS A FAIR AND REASONABLE AMOUNT? (SOMETHING ABOUT APPROPRIATE DELEGATION AND HOURLY RATES TOO...)

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.