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

  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?
  • COST BITES 410: A CLAIMANT’S COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES RELATING TO ISSUE AND PLEADING CANNOT BE USED AS A GROUNDS FOR REDUCING ITS RECOVERABLE COSTS

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.