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

  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: SOME KEY POINTS ABOUT WITNESS SUMMARIES
  • EXPERT WATCH 80: WHEN EXPERTS ARE ON THE METER: ONE EXPERT WAS NOT ALWAYS INDEPENDENT, THE OTHER DID NOT APPRECIATE HIS DUTY TO THE COURT
  • PERMISSION TO RELY ON A WITNESS SUMMARY: DOES THE APPLICANT NEED TO SHOW THE WITNESS HAS REFUSED TO GIVE A STATEMENT? RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OH, AND THAT WITNESS FORMERLY KNOWN AS “PRINCE”)
  • COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: “VERY LATE” ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT’S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
  • COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)

Top Posts

COST BITES 447: “THESE SUMS ARE ASTONISHING”: COURT OF APPEAL CONSIDERS £2 MILLION BRIEF FEE AND COSTS OF A FOUR-DAY APPEAL (AND IS NOT TOO IMPRESSED)
EXPERT WATCH 78 : "ROWING BACK"?: WHEN AN EXPERT CHANGES THEIR VIEW AFTER THE JOINT REPORT: "THAT IS NOT THE FAIR OR PROPER WAY FOR PUTTING NEW EXPERT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT"
DID YOU KNOW THAT YOU COULD BE MADE BANKRUPT (OSTENSIBLY ON YOUR OWN APPLICATION), NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT IT - AND THEN HAVE TO PAY THE TRUSTEE'S COSTS? THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING KEY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COURT
COST BITES 448: PART 36 AND FIXED COSTS: "VERY LATE" ACCEPTANCE OF A DEFENDANT'S OFFER LEADS TO THE CLAIMANT RECOVERING NO COSTS AT ALL
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 101: PUTTING A FIGURE IN THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM DOES NOT NECESSARILY ENTITLE A CLAIMANT TO DEFAULT JUDGMENT FOR THAT SUM

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.