Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Default Costs Certificate
THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME  FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE

THERE WAS NO AGREEMENT TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE AS THE DEFENDANT ASSERTED: THE SCCO REFUSES TO SET ASIDE A DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE

April 13, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Setting aside judgment, Witness statements

This is an interesting judgement on two levels. Firstly the judge did not accept the defendant’s contention that there had been an agreement to extend time for service of Points of Dispute to a bill of costs. Secondly, applying the…

COST BITES 359: A SOLICITOR'S FAILURE TO SIGN THE COSTS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY DID NOT RENDER THE BILL INVALID (THIS MAY EXPLAIN WHY BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY...)

COST BITES 359: A SOLICITOR’S FAILURE TO SIGN THE COSTS CERTIFICATE PROPERLY DID NOT RENDER THE BILL INVALID (THIS MAY EXPLAIN WHY BIRMINGHAM COUNCIL DOES NOT HAVE ANY MONEY…)

February 25, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Default judgment,, Members Content

Here we have an appeal by a paying party on a highly technical point. The appeal failed.  It highlights the dangers of (i) permitting a default certificate to be entered; (ii) taking technical points which (as the Court observed) led…

DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE NOT SET ASIDE: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS WRONG, BUT RECTIFIABLE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE NOT SET ASIDE: SERVICE BY EMAIL WAS WRONG, BUT RECTIFIABLE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

May 13, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Serving documents, Setting aside judgment

Cases on Default Costs Certificates appear to be like London Buses – they come along in twos. Here we have the second case in two days.  In  Serbian Orthodox Church – Serbian Patriarchy v Kesar & Co [2021] EWHC 1205…

DEFENDANTS FAIL TO HAVE DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE OF  US$3 MILLION SET ASIDE: DRAFT POINTS OF DISPUTE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE APPLICATION

DEFENDANTS FAIL TO HAVE DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATE OF US$3 MILLION SET ASIDE: DRAFT POINTS OF DISPUTE NOT AVAILABLE AT THE APPLICATION

May 12, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Default judgment,, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  National Bank of Kazakhstan & Anor v The Bank of New York Mellon SA/NV, London Branch & Ors [2021] EWHC B7 (Costs) Costs Judge Rowley refused an application by the defendants to set aside a default costs certificate.  This…

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MI5: CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTERNAL REPORTS: THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING: A POINT OF GENERAL RELEVANCE NOT JUST SECRET AGENTS…
  • COST BITES 458: “PLEASE JUDGE WE’D LIKE MORE TIME TO PAY THE COSTS”: THE RULES AND CASES CONSIDERED
  • COSTS BITES 457 — A FAILED FRAUD CLAIM, INDEMNITY COSTS AND 14 DAYS TO PAY: “I CONSIDER THAT THIS WAS COMMERCIAL CONDUCT OUT OF THE NORM” (OH, AND YOU DON’T GET MORE TIME TO PAY JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE A LARGE ORGANISATION)
  • COST BITES 456: THE CLAIMANT HAD SUCCEEDED ON ALL FOUGHT POINTS: THERE WOULD BE NO REDUCTION OF ITS COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS IN A LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHY A SOLICITOR TAKES TO TAKE GREAT WHEN MAKING STATEMENTS: “AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS ON WHOSE EVIDENCE I CAN PLACE LITTLE RELIANCE” (IS WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO SEE…)

Top Posts

WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT
EXPERT WATCH 84: THE TRIAL JUDGE'S APPROACH TO THE EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS WRONG: THE APPROACH IN TUI HAD TO BE CONSIDERED: AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR HOUSING LAWYERS...

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.