Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham.
Browse: Home » Extensions of time
PD51ZA WAS NOT EXTENDED: NEW PROVISIONS PLANNED TO ALLOW RULES TO BE CHANGED DURING PUBLIC EMERGENCY

PD51ZA WAS NOT EXTENDED: NEW PROVISIONS PLANNED TO ALLOW RULES TO BE CHANGED DURING PUBLIC EMERGENCY

January 7, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Extensions of time, Rule Changes

There have been several enquiries recently as to whether PD51ZA, which allowed the parties to agree lengthier extensions of time, was extended. The simple answer is that it was not. The rule expired on 30th October 2020.   MINUTES OF…

EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL REFUSED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL REFUSED: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

October 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

In the judgment today in Jamous v Mercouris [2020] EWHC 2814 (QB) Mr Justice Murray refused a claimant’s application for permission to appeal out of time.  It is a reminder that applications of extensions of time to appeal are dealt…

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY WHERE WITNESS EVIDENCE SERVED LATE

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLY WHERE WITNESS EVIDENCE SERVED LATE

September 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The judgment of HHJ Matthews (sitting as a High Court judge) in Wolf Rock (Cornwall) Ltd v Langhelle [2020] EWHC 2500 (Ch) considers the issue of whether the Denton principles apply when a witness statement is served late but there…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ALLOWED WHEN JUDGE HAD RESERVATIONS AS TO WHETHER STRIKING OUT ORDER SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN MADE

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS ALLOWED WHEN JUDGE HAD RESERVATIONS AS TO WHETHER STRIKING OUT ORDER SHOULD EVER HAVE BEEN MADE

August 4, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Relief from sanctions

In Barakat v Greycourt Ltd [2020] EWHC 643 (Ch) Mr Justice Fancourt granted relief from sanctions to an appellant whose appeal had been struck out without notice. One thing of note in this judgment is the order striking out the…

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED FOLLOWING DEFAULT IN AN EXTRADITION CASE

DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT: EXTENSION OF TIME GRANTED FOLLOWING DEFAULT IN AN EXTRADITION CASE

July 15, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

In Zelenko v Prosecutor General’s Office of the Republic of Latvia [2020] EWHC 1800 (Admin) the Administrative Court applied Denton principles to an issue concerning extradition.   THE CASE An order had been made extraditing the applicant to Latvia.  The…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG? TEN SIMPLE POINTS TO MAKE LIFE EASIER & TO CAP OFF THE BANK HOLIDAY WEEKEND

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: WHAT CAN POSSIBLY GO WRONG? TEN SIMPLE POINTS TO MAKE LIFE EASIER & TO CAP OFF THE BANK HOLIDAY WEEKEND

May 25, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Extensions of time, Service of the claim form

 Service of the claim form remain a major cause of problems.  Here we re-cap (not for the first time) on the basic causes of  many of the problems, with links through to the many posts on this subject. This post…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: CLAIMANT SURVIVES "BY THE SKIN OF THEIR TEETH": SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS TO LEARN HERE

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: CLAIMANT SURVIVES “BY THE SKIN OF THEIR TEETH”: SOME IMPORTANT LESSONS TO LEARN HERE

May 19, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

Every year brings its own crop of service of the claim form cases. This year is no different.  In Oran Environmental Solutions Ltd & Anor v QBE Insurance (Europe) Ltd & Anor [2020] EWHC 1271 (Comm) Mrs Justice Cockerill observed…

MORE ON THE NEW RULES EXTENDING TIME:  HOW DOES THE PRACTICE DIRECTION IMPACT ON THE RULES FOR EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE DEFENCE?

MORE ON THE NEW RULES EXTENDING TIME: HOW DOES THE PRACTICE DIRECTION IMPACT ON THE RULES FOR EXTENDING TIME FOR SERVICE OF THE DEFENCE?

April 12, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Extensions of time

A very sensible question was asked on Twitter last week about whether the Practice Direction extending time applied to the very specific rule about parties agreeing an extension of time for filing the defence. THE RULES RELATING TO FILING A…

THE NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION: THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO EXTEND TIME BY AGREEMENT AND MAKING AN APPLICATION

THE NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION: THE LIMITATIONS ON THE POWER TO EXTEND TIME BY AGREEMENT AND MAKING AN APPLICATION

April 2, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Coronavirus, Extensions of time

Although it is welcome the new Practice direction is a bit disappointing.  It does not trust litigators at all (or not very much). Parties can agree extensions of up to 56 days, without permission of the Court, but not beyond…

CORONAVIRUS - A USEFUL CASE: MASTER ALLOWS PARTY TO VARY DIRECTIONS BY CONSENT BY 56 DAYS

CORONAVIRUS – A USEFUL CASE: MASTER ALLOWS PARTY TO VARY DIRECTIONS BY CONSENT BY 56 DAYS

March 16, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time

7BR’s website carries an interesting report  from Adam Korn of a judgment today where Master Davison made an order extending the amount of time the parties can agree to vary directions.  This was directly because of potential difficulties arising out…

OUT OF TIME APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS UNDERLYING MERITS: DENTON CONSIDERED

OUT OF TIME APPEAL ALLOWED BECAUSE OF ITS UNDERLYING MERITS: DENTON CONSIDERED

March 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

For the second time in two days I am writing about a relief from sanctions case where the court took into account the merits of the underlying case.  Yesterday relief was refused because the court held that the case had…

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE - THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT...)

2019 AND CIVIL PROCEDURE – THE YEAR IN REVIEW (3): SANCTIONS AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS (OR NOT…)

December 5, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Relief from sanctions

Another certainty about writing about civil procedure is that every year will bring a batch of applications relating to sanctions and relief from sanctions.  This year has been no different.  We start off (from the end of last year) with…

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP - NOVEMBER 2019

CIVIL PROCEDURE AND COSTS: BLOG AND ARTICLES ROUND UP – NOVEMBER 2019

November 29, 2019 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

Here we have links to blogs and articles about civil procedure and costs from November 2019. COSTS Costs Barrister Blaming others Costs Barrister The undiscovered country Herbert Smith Freehills Court of Appeal confirms jurisdiction to award claimant interim payment on account of costs…

SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND THE "TRAP FOR THE UNWARY CLAIMANT": THE TRAP OPERATED AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED

SERVICE OF THE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM AND THE “TRAP FOR THE UNWARY CLAIMANT”: THE TRAP OPERATED AND RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS NOT GRANTED

November 18, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form, Uncategorized

The judgment of Chief Master Marsh today in Maggistro-Contenta & Anor v O’Shea & Anor [2019] EWHC 3035 (Ch) is a prime example of difficulties being caused because of a mistake in relation to the rules relating to service.   It…

STAGE 3 PROCEEDINGS AND LATE SERVICE OF EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

STAGE 3 PROCEEDINGS AND LATE SERVICE OF EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

November 13, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Witness statements

The judgment of the Court of Appeal yesterday in Wickes Building Supplies Ltd v Blair [2019] EWCA Civ 1934  is an important one in relation to late service of evidence and Stage 3 of the Protocol.  It shows the importance…

PROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME (CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS DO NOT GET EXCITED)

PROSPECTIVE APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS OF TIME (CONSTITUTIONAL LAWYERS DO NOT GET EXCITED)

October 28, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

Today seems a good day to consider prospective applications for extensions of time. These are going to figure in every litigators career at some point.  A knowledge of the relevant law is essential. A prospective application of time is dealt…

DENTON APPLIED TO OUT OF TIME APPLICATION IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: THE APPLICANT STAYS IN JAIL

DENTON APPLIED TO OUT OF TIME APPLICATION IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: THE APPLICANT STAYS IN JAIL

October 15, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Committal proceedings, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

In Lakatamia v SU [2019] EWCA Civ 1626 the Court of Appeal refused an application for permission to appeal out of time in a case where the applicant had been committed to prison for contempt.   “Hysaj establishes that the…

DEFENDANTS - WAKE UP, SERIOUSLY:  A "VERY RELAXED" ATTITUDE TO THE RULES WILL COST YOUR CLIENTS DEAR: APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE REFUSED: REFUSAL CONFIRMED ON APPEAL

DEFENDANTS – WAKE UP, SERIOUSLY: A “VERY RELAXED” ATTITUDE TO THE RULES WILL COST YOUR CLIENTS DEAR: APPLICATION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE A DEFENCE REFUSED: REFUSAL CONFIRMED ON APPEAL

October 4, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Relief from sanctions

In Joan Angela Kember v (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard John Kember, Deceased And On Her Own Behalf And On Behalf of His Dependants) [2019] EWHC 2297 (QB) Mrs Justice Lambert upheld a refusal to grant a…

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

WHEN A JUDGE MAKES A WRONG DECISION BECAUSE RELEVANT PAPERS (WHICH HAVE BEEN SENT TO COURT IN GOOD TIME) HAVE NOT REACHED THEM

September 11, 2019 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time

The decision in Singh v The Secretary of State for the Home Department [2019] EWCA Civ 1504 related to a case where a decision was made when the judge was not given relevant papers that had arrived at court. “In…

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 11: PROCEDURE: AN EIGHT POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS IN LITIGATION 11: PROCEDURE: AN EIGHT POINT SURVIVAL GUIDE

August 27, 2019 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time

Here we have a short eight point guide on some of the key problem areas in relation to procedure once proceedings have been issued. Rule 1: Have everything ready pre-issue and have a plan. Effectively this means that you have,…

1 2 … 6 Next →

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2021. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 23,049 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: “A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE’S FUNCTION)
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN – AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT… & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

Top Posts & Pages

  • THINGS THAT LAWYERS DO TO ANNOY JUDGES: SCOWL AND POUT... & ROLL YOUR EYES
  • WITNESS STATEMENTS IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS AFTER THE 6TH APRIL 2021: THE DECLARATION THAT THE CLIENT HAS TO SIGN - AND WHY IT POINTS STRAIGHT BACK AT YOU
  • PROVING THINGS 206: THE EMPLOYERS LIABILITY (DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT) ACT 1969 IN ACTION
  • APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: "A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION)
  • CLEAR FINDINGS OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY: NO SUBSTANTIAL INJUSTICE IN APPLYING THE PRINCIPLE: CLAIMANT IN AT THE DEEP END

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 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Hardwicke
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2021 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin