Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Fee remission
IMPORTANT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: A CLAIM IS BROUGHT WHEN A CLAIM FORM IS SENT TO THE COURT EVEN IF IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CORRECT ISSUE FEE

IMPORTANT COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY: A CLAIM IS BROUGHT WHEN A CLAIM FORM IS SENT TO THE COURT EVEN IF IT DOES NOT HAVE THE CORRECT ISSUE FEE

March 4, 2026 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

This Court of Appeal decision today clarifies the position when a claimant files a claim at court but mistakenly does not pay the correct fee.  The Court held that the claim was “delivered” when the claim was filed at court….

CHANGES IN ELIGIBILITY FOR COURT FEE REMISSION: THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (FEE REMISSION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) ORDER 2023

CHANGES IN ELIGIBILITY FOR COURT FEE REMISSION: THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS (FEE REMISSION AND MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) ORDER 2023

October 17, 2023 · by gexall · in Court fees, Members Content, Rule Changes

The Courts and Tribunals (Fee Remissions and Miscellaneous Amendments) Order 2023 increases the capital and income limits for fee remission from the 27th November 2023.  The Order is available here.  The explanatory notes are set out below.   CAPITAL CHANGES…

CLAIMANT WHO FAILS TO OBTAIN COURT FEE REMISSION - CAN RECOVER THE COURT FEE ON APPEAL: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION ON APPEAL

CLAIMANT WHO FAILS TO OBTAIN COURT FEE REMISSION – CAN RECOVER THE COURT FEE ON APPEAL: CIRCUIT JUDGE DECISION ON APPEAL

January 22, 2020 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

I am grateful to Jon Heath from Levins,solicitors,   for sending me a copy of the decision of HHJ Lethem in Ivanov -v- Lubble (Central London County Court 17th January 2020).  This relates to the issue of whether a claimant, eligible…

STATUTORY APPEALS: "EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES" AND APPEALING OUT OF TIME: WITH IMPORTANT POINTS ON THE REMISSION OF COURT FEES

March 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In The Nursing and Midwifery Council -v- Daniels [2015] EWCA Civ 225 the Court of Appeal emphasised the need for exceptional circumstances to exist when a party is seeking an extension of time to a statutory time period for appealing….

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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: “THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES…”
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • CLAIMS FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS: AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: WEBINAR 19th JUNE 2026 (TOGETHER WITH A USEFUL QUESTIONNAIRE AND SERIES OF CHECKLISTS)
  • THE “WEAPONISATION” OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT’S NOT CLEVER, IT’S NOT “TOUGH” AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE “A GREAT MYSTERY” TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS…)

Top Posts

  • THE "WEAPONISATION" OF APPLICATIONS TO COMMIT IN CIVIL PROCEEDINGS: IT'S NOT CLEVER, IT'S NOT "TOUGH" AND IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MARKETING TOOL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: SCHEDULES AND COUNTER-SCHEDULES ARE NOT A "NUMBER CRUNCHING EXERCISE" (APRIL 2018)
  • PROVING THINGS 288: HOW SHOULD A COURT CONSIDER A CLAIM FOR LOSS OF EARNINGS WHEN THE CLAIMANT IS STILL IN EMPLOYMENT? SMITH -v- MANCHESTER APPROACH PREVAILS
  • COST BITES 378 : REFORM OF THE SOLICITORS ACT 1974, PART III: READ THE CONSULATION PAPER: A CHANCE TO COMMENT ON THE PROVISIONS THAT ARE "A GREAT MYSTERY" TO MANY SOLICITORS (NOT MY WORDS...)
  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 3: WHY PD57AC WAS INTRODUCED: "THE PROPER AND SENSIBLE SCOPE OF EVIDENCE-IN-CHIEF IS NO LONGER THE STOCK-IN-TRADE KNOWLEDGE OF THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PROOFING WITNESSSES..."

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.