Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » disputing the jurisdiction
JURISDICTION CHALLENGE UNDER CPR 11 WAS "TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT": THE APPLICANT HAD ACCEPTED JURISDICTION IN ANY EVENT: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED

JURISDICTION CHALLENGE UNDER CPR 11 WAS “TOTALLY WITHOUT MERIT”: THE APPLICANT HAD ACCEPTED JURISDICTION IN ANY EVENT: INDEMNITY COSTS ORDERED

December 30, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Here we look at an unusual application to challenge jurisdiction under CPR Part 11.  It was unusual because it invited the court to consider the case on the merits. The court was not impressed with this approach, declaring it to…

AIRLINE'S ATTEMPT TO "CHALLENGE JURISDICTION" FAILS TO TAKE OFF: "I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFENDANT HAS DEFENDED THIS ACTION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS"

AIRLINE’S ATTEMPT TO “CHALLENGE JURISDICTION” FAILS TO TAKE OFF: “I FAIL TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE DEFENDANT HAS DEFENDED THIS ACTION IN THE MANNER IN WHICH IT HAS”

November 25, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

There are some interesting applications where defendants attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Court using CPR 11. This case is one of the most intriguing I have seen.  The defendant’s argument here relied on the submission that notification of…

SERVICE POINTS 19: THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION DESPITE NOT USING PART 11 (AND, PERHAPS, A WORKING EXAMPLE OF WHY LITIGATORS NEED TO READ THIS BLOG...)

SERVICE POINTS 19: THE DEFENDANT WAS ALLOWED TO DISPUTE JURISDICTION DESPITE NOT USING PART 11 (AND, PERHAPS, A WORKING EXAMPLE OF WHY LITIGATORS NEED TO READ THIS BLOG…)

November 14, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are looking at another claim form case. This time the issue related to whether the defendant had made the correct application and, if it had not, whether it was prevented from arguing the court did not have jurisdiction.  What…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AND SUBMISSIONS TO THE JURISDICTION: SOMETHING ABOUT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS TOO

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AND SUBMISSIONS TO THE JURISDICTION: SOMETHING ABOUT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS TOO

April 15, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form

In  Moonbug Entertainment Ltd v CCM Touring LLC & Anor [2024] EWHC 793 (Comm) Mr Justice Andrew Baker found that the defendants had submitted to the jurisdiction by their conduct. Further the defendants required relief from sanctions. The judge held…

CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS AN APPROPRIATE STEP IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A "REDUNDANT" SOLDIER

CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION OF THE COURT WAS AN APPROPRIATE STEP IN AN ACTION BROUGHT BY A “REDUNDANT” SOLDIER

November 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out

There is a procedural issue considered in the judgment of Mr Justice Martin Spencer in Malone v Ministry of Defence [2021] EWHC 2958 (QB).  The judge held that it was appropriate for the Ministry of Defence, facing a claim in…

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

  • WASTED COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST SOLICITORS WHEN THEY WERE MISTAKEN AS TO WHO THEY WERE INSTRUCTED BY: THE DEFENDANT ESTABLISHES CAUSATION
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY (1): ADJOURNMENTS ON THE GROUNDS OF ILL HEALTH: A DETAILED CONSIDERATION (APRIL 2015)
  • MAZUR IN THE COURT OF APPEAL: WEBINAR WITH CHECKLISTS: NOW AVAILABLE "ON DEMAND"
  • 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"
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..

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.