Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » extension of time
CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULAR OF CLAIM REFUSED: A CASE THAT WAS IN THE "LAST CHANCE SALOON" FOR FAR TOO LONG

CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULAR OF CLAIM REFUSED: A CASE THAT WAS IN THE “LAST CHANCE SALOON” FOR FAR TOO LONG

April 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  CDE v Buckinghamshire County Council [2022] EWHC 738 (QB) Master Thornett rejected a claimant’s application for an extension of time for service of the particulars of claim. The action had a long history with a pattern of delay on…

COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME IN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LITIGATE - THAT IS WHAT LIMITATION IS

COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME IN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT CLAIM: THERE IS NO RIGHT TO LITIGATE – THAT IS WHAT LIMITATION IS

March 18, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Limitation, Members Content

In  Rafiq v Thurrock Borough Council [2022] EWHC 584 (QB) Mrs Justice Collins Rice refused a claimant’s for an extension of time to a claimant bringing a claim under the Human Rights Act.  The judgment is a reminder that there…

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT'S APPLICATION TO AMEND ITS OWN APPLICATION: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO AMEND ITS OWN APPLICATION: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION

December 14, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are few judgments in relation to the amendment of applications.  This issue was considered by Deputy Master Francis in Cavadore Ltd & Anor v Jawa & Anor [2021] EWHC 3382 (Ch).  The claimant’s application to amend its application was…

HOME SECRETARY REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE EVIDENCE LATE: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE WAS USED EVEN IF DENTON DID NOT APPLY

HOME SECRETARY REFUSED PERMISSION TO SERVE EVIDENCE LATE: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE WAS USED EVEN IF DENTON DID NOT APPLY

June 28, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Teh v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWHC 1586 (Admin) the Secretary of State was refused permission to rely on evidence served late.  The issue was decided under the Overriding Objective, rather than by reference to the…

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? PERSONAL INJURY: WEBINAR 3rd JUNE 2026
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 79: COURT REJECTS CLAIMANT’S AMENDMENT APPLICATION BECAUSE THERE WERE “REASONABLY ARGUABLE” ISSUES IN RELATION TO LIMITATION
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 78: CLAIMANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND PARTICULARS IN CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE/FATAL ACCIDENT CLAIM
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: AMENDING PLEADINGS : A REVIEW OF THE PRINCIPLES: WHAT IS MEANT BY “LATE”? (MAY 2015)
  • COST BITES : BOTH PARTIES MADE “PART 36 OFFERS”: BOTH WERE INEFFECTIVE (AND THE MASTER WOULD NOT HAVE IMPOSED THE USUAL CONSEQUENCES EVEN IF THEY WERE VALID…)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.