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 24

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…

PROPORTIONALITY II (THE EXTENDED ALBUM EDITION)

June 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

The earlier post on the decision in Dr Brian May -v- Wavell Group Plc [2016] EWHC B16 (Costs) outlined the decision in summary.  This is a case that justifies an extended examination. REPRISE Following acceptance of the defendant’s Part 36 offer of…

PROPORTIONALITY: WE WILL, WE WILL ROCK YOU

June 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Jon Lord for sending me a copy of the decision of Master Rowley in Dr Brian May -v- Wavell Group Plc  given today (16/06/2016).  It is another case that centres on proportionality. There was a considerable…

OVERSPENDING ON YOUR COSTS BUDGET? BETTER TELL YOUR CLIENT

June 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

Way back in the mist of time (that is post-Mitchell, pre-Denton) I reported a decision of District Judge Lumb on sanctions and costs budgeting. That particular post was then  plagiarised without any reference to me (matters were resolved amicably). However…

INDEMNITY COSTS ON APPEAL AFTER PART 36 OFFER

June 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

For the second time today I express my thanks to John McQuater. This time for drawing my attention to the  Court of Appeal decision on costs in Summers -v- Bundy (11/02/2016)*  This case shows the importance of making Part 36…

PART 36: INDEMNITY COSTS WHEN A DEFENDANT ACCEPTS OUT OF TIME

June 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Part 36, Uncategorized

I am grateful to John McQuater for sending me a copy of the judgment of District Judge Besford in the case of Sutherland -v- Khan (21st April 2016) (a copy of the transcript is attached to this blog here  …

"THAT PROPORTIONALITY JUDGMENT": 10 KEY POINTS

June 5, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

The post yesterday on the decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) set out the case in some detail.  Here are the key points of that decision. KEY POINTS On an assessment of costs on…

PROPORTIONALITY CONQUERS ALL? PROFIT COSTS (AND COUNSEL'S FEES) HALVED

June 4, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The decision of Master Gordon-Saker in BNM -v-MGN Limited [2016] EWHC B13 (Costs) has already received widespread publicity. The principle of proportionality was used to halve profit costs and counsel’s fees and make a substantial reduction on the insurance premium….

PROVING THINGS 20: ALLEGATIONS OF IMPROPER CONDUCT HAVE TO BE PROVEN: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED

May 30, 2016 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Civil evidence, Conduct, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Collins -v- Thanet District Council Collins anor v Thanet DC anor (19 4 16)(Jud) 2 [2016] EWHC 1008 (QB) His Honour Judge Yelton (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) considered the evidence available to support allegations of misfeasance…

IT'S NOT JUST WINNING BUT HOW YOU PLAY THE GAME: COSTS ORDERS WHEN BOTH PARTIES ASSERT THAT THEY HAVE "WON"

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

In Milanese -v- Leyton Orient Football Club Limited [2016] EWHC 1263 (QB) Mrs Justice Whipple considered issues relating to costs after a case in which each party claimed to have won. “I remind myself that this is an area where…

QOCS CONTINUE TO APPLY ON APPEAL: HIGH COURT DECISION

May 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

In Parker -v- Butler [2016] EWHC 1251 (QB) Mr Justice Edis decided that QOCS protection continued to apply when a claimant appealed. “To construe the word “proceedings” as excluding an appeal which was necessary if he were to succeed in…

FAILING TO PLEAD CASE FULLY CAN LEAD TO YOUR ACTION GOING DOWN THE DRAIN

May 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Costs, Members Content, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision today in the case  of Court -v- Van Dijk [2016] EWCA Civ 438  is the third case within a month where the courts have considered the adequacy of statements of case.  It is also has…

SUCCESS FEES:DEDUCTIONS FROM DAMAGES WHERE CLAIMANT IS UNDER A DISABILITY

May 19, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conditional Fee Agreements, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

The issue of deductions of success fees in cases when the claimant is under a disability remains a difficult one. I am grateful to Jane McBennett of Morrish Solicitors in Bradford for the attached note in relation to a court…

THE SUPREME COURT CONSIDERS THE QUESTION OF EXPENSIVE BUNDLES: COULD IT BE CHEAPER ELECTRONICALLY?

May 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

Since Supreme Court decisions on trial bundles are few and far between I am  compelled to write about the judgment in Eclipse Film Partners -v- Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs [2016] UKSC 24.  Here the Court considered bundles…

ASSIGNMENT OF CFAS: ROUND 2: ASSIGNMENT CAN TAKE PLACE

May 11, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Success Fees, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Jones -v- Spire Healthcare Ltd His Honour Graham Wood QC had to determine the issue of whether a CFA can be assigned. The full judgment is an attachment to this post and is available here…

FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: THE PAST 12 MONTHS: A ROUND UP

May 9, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized, Useful links

On May 10th last year I did a round up of cases and commentary on the issue of fundamental dishonesty.  Here we look at cases and commentary in the past 12 months. CASES Most of the cases are inevitably first…

WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: MAKE A PEREMPTORY ORDER

May 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Uncategorized

In Peak Hotels -v- Tarek Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 690 (Ch) Mrs Justice Asplin considered the appropriate approach when a party  has failed to pay an interlocutory costs order.  There is a succinct summary of the relevant case law. “If…

RTA TRIAL FEE RECOVERABLE IF CASE SETTLES AT TRIAL

May 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

In Mendes -v- Hocthtief (UK) Construction Ltd [2016] EWHC 976 (QB) Mr Justice Coulson decided a point of some importance: is the RTA Protocol brief fee recoverable if a matter settles at trial. “… there are sound policy reasons for…

COSTS: NOT EVERY DEFENDANT NEEDED REPRESENTATION ON APPEAL

April 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Uncategorized

There are some important observations about costs made by Mrs Justice Carr DBE in RSPCA -v- McCormick & others [2016] EWHC 928 (Admin). THE CASE The RSPCA brought an appeal by way of case stated as to the meaning of…

WHAT IS MEANT BY A "SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT"? AMENDING THE COSTS BUDGET WHEN CLAIM DOUBLES IN SIZE: CLAIMANT GETS THE BOOT

April 27, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Case Management, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

I am grateful to barrister Colm Nugent for his notes of the decision of Mr Justice Picken in Churchill -v- Boot (22/04/2016) in relation to costs budgeting (a summary of this case is also available on Lawtel). KEY POINTS A…

QOCS AND DISHONESTY: YOU CAN TRY TO CHECK OUT ANY TIME YOU LIKE BUT YOU CAN’T ALWAYS LEAVE

April 24, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

Thanks to Sintons LLP there is now a copy available online of the judgment of HH Judge Gosnell in Rouse -v- Aviva Insurance Limited (15th January 2016). This is another case that relates to discontinuance by the claimant in a…

THE RISKS OF JOINING A THIRD PARTY INTO AN ACTION: THE DEFENDANT MAY NOT RECOVER THE COSTS

April 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Interim Payments, Members Content, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment on costs in Axon -v- Ministry of Defence [2016] EWHC 883 (QB) highlights the risks of a defendant bringing a Third Party into an action.  The defendant was successful, however the claimant was not ordered to pay all…

THE LIMITS OF QOCS: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

April 20, 2016 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, QOCS

NB THIS DECISION WAS SUBSEQUENTLY OVERTURNED ON APPEAL. SEE THE POST ON THE APPEAL AVAILABLE HERE  In Howe -v- Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2016] 884 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart considered the meaning of an action for “personal injury”. He held that…

← Previous 1 … 23 24 25 … 30 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 (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”
  • THE COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS A JUDICIAL REVIEW DECISION IN FAVOUR OF A SOLICITOR: THE OMBUDSMAN GOT NOTHING WRONG (QUITE A LOT HERE ABOUT VULNERABLE CLIENTS AS WELL…)
  • DEEPFAKES AND THE LAWYER: SOME USEFUL CHECKLISTS AND LINKS: “VERIFICATION SHOULD OCCUR BEFORE EVIDENCE IS DEPLOYED, NOT AFTER AUTHENTICITY IS CHALLENGED…”

Top Posts

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...)
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
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
PROVING THINGS 291: WHAT WEIGHT DOES A JUDGE GIVE TO WITNESS STATEMENTS WHEN THE WITNESSES DO NOT ATTEND TRIAL AND (THE JUDGE FINDS) THERE IS NO GOOD REASON FOR THIS?

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.