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

COSTS, OFFERS AND ESTATES: A CASE IN POINT

October 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There is an interesting discussion as to costs in the judgment of HH Judge Hodge QC in Goenka -v- Goenka [2014] EWHC 2966 (Ch). This also shows the difficulty in dealing with costs issues at the end of a long…

THE MITCHELL CASE RUMBLES ON: MORE PROCEDURAL ISSUES: SPLIT TRIAL ORDERED

August 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I feel almost duty bound to continue to report on the Mitchell case, even if now has limited relevance to the question of sanctions. The latest case management decision offers an interesting decision on whether there should be a split…

BUNDLES, APPEALS AND THE ART OF ADVOCACY: ARE POOR BUNDLES LETTING DOWN YOUR CASE?

July 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Written advocacy

The recent post on Caldero Trading -v- Leibson [2014] EWCA Civ 935 included the Court of Appeal’s criticism of the voluminous bundles prepared in that case.  The trial bundle is often neglected as a tool for advocacy. THIS DOES MEAN THAT A…

UNILATERAL DECISIONS TO VARY ORDERS WILL LEAD TO TROUBLE AND AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT: PARATUS AMC EXAMINED

June 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Paratus AMC Ltd -v- Lewis [2014] EWHC 1577 (Ch) has been placed on Bailli following an order by the judge to highlight an issue of contempt of court. As such it clearly requires wider publication. It also…

CHANGING THE TRIAL DATE : A CASE IN POINT: MITCHELL REMAINS A "TOP BRAND"

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

Ever since the introduction of the Woolf reforms the trial date has been viewed as fairly sacrosanct. Once set it is hard to change without a good reason. This position has probably hardened as a result of Mitchell.  The issue…

WHEN IS AN APPLICATION "MADE"? A MATTER THAT COULD BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE

April 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) discussed in a previous post means that there is a highly significant difference between applications made before the date of compliance and those made afterwards.   An application made after the…

THE COURTS SHOULD NOT MAKE PEREMPTORY ORDERS LIGHTLY: PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION –V- ZULFIKAR MASTERS CONSIDERED

March 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 The fact that relief from sanctions is now  more difficult emphasises the principle that courts should not make peremptory orders lightly.  The case of Porter Capital –v- Zulfikar (19/3/1014) only on Lawtel at present) is a case to point.  THE…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST "INNOCENT" PARTY

March 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Lakatamia Shipping -v- Nobu Su [2014] EWHC 796 has been dealt with before  on this blog in relation to a successful application for relief from sanctions. The judge’s comments on the costs of the application are now available…

DUNHILL -v- TASKER: SUPREME COURT DECISION GIVEN TODAY: PROTECTED PARTY CANNOT SETTLE CLAIM WITHOUT APPROVAL. SUPREME COURT DECISION ATTACHED

March 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I have attached a copy of the Supreme Court decision in Dunhill -v- Tasker which was given today UKSC_2012_0136_Judgment (1).   The conclusion is that a compromise reached by a protected party cannot be valid unless approved by the court. …

COSTS BUDGETING, CASE MANAGEMENT & TECHNOLOGY: FREE BUNDLE PREPARATION FOR CASE MANAGEMENT HEARINGS: USEFUL DOCUMENTS AND LINKS

March 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Useful links

Case management and costs budgeting remain one of the Jackson innovations we are still getting used to.  There are several useful guides that assist, plus one company offers a free service providing the bundle for the Case Management Conference. This…

HAVE YOU BEEN "MITCHELLED"? THE PROBLEMS OF WITHOUT NOTICE ORDERS: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I am grateful to Simon Baskind from Cohen Cramer solicitors in Leeds for the following account of a “Mitchell” problem. ACTION STRUCK OUT BY THE COURT FOR NO GOOD REASON “I know we are all probably suffering from Mitchell overload…

NEWLAND CONSIDERS NEW GROUND: LOSS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT A “GOOD REASON” FOR OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS.

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The case of Newland –v- Toba Trading involves some complex facts.  However it is important that it is reviewed n detail because there are important observations on civil procedure. In particular whether a party should apply for a review or…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING BY E-MAIL: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

A recent post  looked at potential problems with serving documents by e-mail. That this is a very real issue is shown by a report of a decision sent to me by counsel.  The full details of the case are withheld. …

MORE ON ORDERS ALLOWING THE PARTIES TO EXTEND TIME BY AGREEMENT

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It appears that the proposed change to allow the parties to vary orders by consent only applies to clinical negligence cases. Lexis Law Dispute Resolution report  The Judicial Office has released this statement: “A draft amendment to the clinical negligence…

THE REMAINING PROBLEM OF HISTORICAL AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: USEFUL GUIDANCE FROM PREVIOUS AUTHORITIES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE

February 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 ANDREW WILKEY –V- BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2002] EWCA Civ 1561 Wilkey was a case in which the Court of Appeal considered the practical impact of the decision in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997 and Anderton v…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 3: IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH A RULE OR PRACTICE DIRECTION THEN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT IS BREACHED

December 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Mitchell case makes it clear that applications for relief from sanctions made after breach will be granted sparingly.  Here we consider the merits of making an application in advance of the date of breach.  WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL…

KARBHARI: THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS

December 19, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

KARBHARI -v- AHMED http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/4042.html 2013] EWHC 4042 (QB) This was a  High Court case listed for seven days. On the first day of the trial the defendant’s counsel indicated that it would be necessary to amend the Defence and introduce a supplementary…

TRIAL BUNDLES: TIMING, CONTENTS AND PRESENTATION : AND DO YOU KNOW SEDLEY’S LAWS?

December 16, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links, Witness statements

Amidst the Mitchell Mayhem and the high glamour and glitz of Civil Litigation at the moment I am writing a post on the mundane subject of trial bundles.  Mundane but important. The significance of bundles was highlighted in the recent…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 2: ASSUME EVERY ORDER OF THE COURT IS A PEREMPTORY ORDER.

December 14, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Some of the cases on sanctions reported this week have been highly disturbing; with cases being struck out on the morning of the trial because the bundles were not lodged three days earlier.  As a result the only safe assumption…

SG DG PETROL: A (HIGH COURT) POST-MITCHELL DECISION ON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

December 11, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

There is a High Court decision on relief from sanctions at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/3920.html An application for relief from sanctions was dismissed. The judge went on to make general observations about how applications for relief from sanctions should be conducted. In SG DG Pet……

THE AFTERMATH FROM MITCHELL: THIS IS GETTING REALLY, REALLY, SERIOUS

December 9, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I have been in discussions today with one barrister who estimates that, in his own practice alone, he has  already represented claimants where a total of £1 million pounds of damages have been lost as a result of a decision…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT: THE LETTER OF THE LAW

December 3, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The case of Forstator -v- Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd [2013] EWHC 3759 is a case where the Court granted relief from sanctions. It was heard before the Mitchell decision but judgment was given afterwards. The judge did not hear submissions…

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A DETAILED EXAMINATION

November 28, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

There has been much comment about the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell on litigation and litigators.  Here we look, in considerable detail, at the guidance given in relation to relief from sanctions and associated case law….

MITCHELL: 20 KEY POINTS OF JUDGMENT

November 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Mitchell -v- News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 today.  The case has been much covered. The Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused.  The key points of general importance are: 1….

BIFFA WASTE SERVICES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

November 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 Biffa Waste Services Ltd –v- Ali Dinler [2013] is a case where the judge, on appeal, overturned an earlier order granting relief from sanctions. The full transcript is now available and is notable for its detailed consideration of the principles…

“AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW MODERN LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED.”

November 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 It may be thought that commentary on issues of procedural default is in abeyance until the Mitchell decision from the Court of Appeal. However, as recent posts have shown, cases are still coming through thick and fast.  When a judge…

INTERESTING FIRST INSTANCE DECISION ON STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES BECAUSE OF DILATORY CONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANT

November 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Striking out

The 9sjs website has an interesting report of a decision in the Bow County Court where the judge struck out a claim for £220,000 on the grounds that the claimant had not complied with directions.  See the report at http://www.9sjs.com/assets/Uploads/ozbay.pdf It…

MITCHELL -v- NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS: OUTLINE OF DEFENDANT'S SUBMISSIONS

November 7, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

These notes come with same caveat as the Claimant’s notes in the previous post. They are  from handwritten notes taken in court today. They do not purport to be a transcript. All that can be done is to give a…

MITCHELL -v- NEWS GROUP NEWSPAPERS: OUTLINE OF CLAIMANT'S SUBMISSIONS

November 7, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There appeal in the Mitchell case was heard in the Court of Appeal case earlier today.  Judgment was reserved. I have a note of the arguments on behalf of the Claimant/Appellant.   The Defendant’s arguments will be posted later. I…

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

  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • COST BITES 375 : WHY THESE INTERIM BILLS WERE NOT STATUTORY BILLS: “VERY CLEAR EVIDENCE WOULD BE NEEDED TO ESTABLISH THAT AN INVOICE WHICH, ON ITS FACE, IS EXPRESSLY NOT FINAL HAS NONETHELESS BEEN AGREED TO BE FINAL”
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE “ON DEMAND”
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)

Top Posts

  • JOINDER OF NEW PARTIES IN EXISTING PROCEEDINGS 2: THE PRINCIPLES (AND THE COSTS!)
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING
  • THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)

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