Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Defence
GOT TO DRAFT A DEFENCE? SOME HELPFUL GUIDANCE FROM OUR CANADIAN COUSINS

GOT TO DRAFT A DEFENCE? SOME HELPFUL GUIDANCE FROM OUR CANADIAN COUSINS

September 24, 2020 · by gexall · in Members Content, Statements of Case, Useful links

  There is relatively little guidance given on the process involved in drafting a defence.  There is some useful help given the the Law Society of Ontario Practice Area Resource “How to Prepare a Statement of Defence”. Some of this…

COVID REPEATS 31: REPLIES AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: A PRIMER

COVID REPEATS 31: REPLIES AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM: A PRIMER

May 24, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Surprisingly this post about the basics of replies and counterclaims  was the second most read post on this blog in 2017 (surprising because it was written in July 2016).  It simply sets out the basic rules relating to filing a…

APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING A DEFENCE - AFTER THE DEFENCE IS DUE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

APPLYING FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FILING A DEFENCE – AFTER THE DEFENCE IS DUE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

September 6, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Conduct, Default judgment,, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of Deputy Master Pickering in Billington v Davies & Anor [2016] EWHC 1919 (Ch) has only recently appeared on BAILLI. It raises an interesting issue of how the courts should approach the question of a late application to extend…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 12: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A NON-ADMISSION AND A DENIAL

August 15, 2018 · by gexall · in Admissions, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Some defences adopt a scattergun approach of “denying” everything.  Some are more selective – they “put the Claimant to strict proof”.  Many defences ignore the important distinction between a non-admission and a denial. THE DIFFERENCE IN A NUTSHELL If you…

STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT "TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES"

STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT “TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES”

March 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

In Brown & Anor (t/a Maple Hayes Hall School) v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) Mr Edward Pepperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) struck out a defence that was . In giving the defendant another chance he made…

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

LATE AMENDMENT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 22, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case

We looked at the decision in  Nesbit Law Group LLP -v- Acasta European Insurance Company Limited (Leeds Mercantile Court 15.9.16) in an earlier post.  The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal  Nesbit Law Group LLP v Acasta European Insurance Company Ltd [2018]…

LATE (BUT NOT VERY LATE) AMENDMENTS ALLOWED:  LIMITATION DEFENCE WAS NOT "MUCKING AROUND AT THE LAST MOMENT"

LATE (BUT NOT VERY LATE) AMENDMENTS ALLOWED: LIMITATION DEFENCE WAS NOT “MUCKING AROUND AT THE LAST MOMENT”

August 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Vilca & Ors v XSTRATA Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 2096 (QB) Mr Justice Stuart Smith allowed a late, but not “very late” application by the defendant to allow it to plead limitation. “To my mind…  all of the…

COSTS AFTER A PART 36 OFFER AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: CONDUCT OF DEFENCE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INDEMNITY COSTS

COSTS AFTER A PART 36 OFFER AFFECTED BY THE CHANGE IN THE DISCOUNT RATE: CONDUCT OF DEFENCE ALONE SUFFICIENT TO JUSTIFY INDEMNITY COSTS

August 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Conduct, Costs, Members Content, Part 36

I have written several times about the judgment of Thirlwall LJ in Marsh -v- MOJ*. I have been provided with a copy of a note of the judgment on costs given on the 31st July 2017. I am grateful to…

WHY LIFE IS NOW  DANGEROUS FOR DEFENDANTS (ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DON'T FILE A DEFENCE ON TIME)

WHY LIFE IS NOW DANGEROUS FOR DEFENDANTS (ESPECIALLY THOSE WHO DON’T FILE A DEFENCE ON TIME)

July 21, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Default judgment,, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Summary judgment

The judgment of Mr Justice Coulson in ADVA Optical Networking Limited -v- Optron Holding Limited  [2017] EWHC 1813 (TCC) highlights what a dangerous world this can be for defendants. A defendant who is late filing a defence, and where judgment has not been…

A "DEFENCE STRAIGHT OUT OF THE 1970S": DEFENDANT'S PLEADINGS 40 YEARS OUT OF DATE

A “DEFENCE STRAIGHT OUT OF THE 1970S”: DEFENDANT’S PLEADINGS 40 YEARS OUT OF DATE

May 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Some defences are inadequate. Some are (rightly) struck out. Some do not recognise the essential difference between a non-admission  and a denial. A series of denials is, the case law makes clear, an inappropriate and archaic way of proceeding. “Churchill’s…

ATTRITIONAL WARFARE; UNMERITORIOUS POINTS AND UNFOUNDED ALLEGATIONS OF BAD FAITH: SO MUCH (AND MORE) IN ONE JUDGMENT

August 2, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Conduct, Damages, Default judgment,, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content, Uncategorized

The judgment today of Mr Justice Edis in  Hayden -v- Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust makes for uncomfortable reading on the issue of the general attitude of the lawyers towards the conduct of the litigation.   In addition to…

IF YOU ARE GOING TO DRAFT PLEADINGS THEN DO IT PROPERLY: A REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY

July 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Case Management, Members Content, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

A post last month highlighted a case where a defendant obtained judgment in default on a counterclaim. The judge refused to set aside the judgment and, in effect, the claimant’s entire claim failed. There is a clear and obvious need…

PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" & A "DENIAL" EXPLORED

July 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

The decision of Mr Justice Bean in Dil -v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 2184 (QB)  relates to a police force’s obligations in relation to the disclosure of details of undercover operations and informers.  However it also deals…

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS: GUIDANCE FOR THOSE WHO TAKE THEM AND THOSE WHO SUPERVISE THEM: WEBINAR 15th OCTOBER 2025
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW…
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
  • MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY “THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION” 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS

Top Posts

  • MAZUR MATTERS 11: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 2: WHEN SOMEBODY BREACHED THE ACT AND WAS IN CONTEMPT OF COURT BY ARRANGING FOR THE SERVICE OF PLEADINGS
  • MAZUR MATTERS 12: WHAT IS MEANT BY "THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION" 3: JUDGMENT ON WHAT IS NOT THE CONDUCT OF LITIGATION
  • EXPERT WATCH 17: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION BY THE HIGH COURT OF WHEN EXPERT EVIDENCE IS PERMITTED OR "REASONABLY REQUIRED": COMPLIANCE WITH THE RULES IS VERY IMPORTANT HERE
  • SERVICE POINTS 12: ANOTHER CLAIMANT COMES TO GRIEF IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: CPR 7.6 APPLIED AND NOT 3.9 (THE CLAIMANT COULD HAVE GOOGLED THIS)
  • SERVICE POINTS 13: IS A CLAIMANT SAVED BY THE FACT THAT THE DEFENDANT DID NOT FILE AN ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF SERVICE OR MAKE AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 11? THE COURT OF APPEAL HAVE A VIEW...

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.