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 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
  • THE JUDGE FOUND AGAINST ME BECAUSE THEY GAVE TOO MUCH LEEWAY TO A LITIGANT IN PERSON : ALLEGATIONS OF THIS KIND SHOULD BE PARTICULARISED (AND CAREFULLY THOUGHT OUT)
  • SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENT: THE RELEVANCE OF DELAY AND THE DENTON PRINCIPLES CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: DRAFTING SCHEDULES OF DAMAGES: WEBINAR 16th APRIL 2026: WITH SOME INTERESTING QUOTES TO WHET YOUR APPETITE..
  • MAZUR(ISH) MATTERS 59: UNQUALIFIED PERSON NOT ALLOWED TO REPRESENT PARKING COMPANY AT A SMALL CLAIMS HEARING

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.