Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Human Rights
PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: "ACADEMIC" ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING

PROPORTIONALITY AND CASE MANAGEMENT: THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE APPLIES ON A MACRO SCALE: “ACADEMIC” ISSUE SHOULD PROCEED TO A HEARING

February 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In London Borough of Haringey v Simawi [2018] EWHC 290 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklen expressly considered the Overriding Objective when determining whether a human rights  issue that could be rendered “academic” should continue to a hearing. “Those rules are directed at…

LIMITATION, DISABILITY AND THE HUMAN RIGHTS ACT: COURT REFUSES TO EXTEND TIME: KEY DUTY ON LEGAL ADVISERS

January 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content

In AP -v- Tameside Metropolitan Borough Council [2017] EWHC 65 (QB) Mr Justice King considered issues relating to limitation, disability and a claim under the Human Rights Act. KEY POINTS The fact that a party lacks capacity does not prevent…

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

  • WILL AN INSURER PAY FOR THIS? A CRUCIAL QUESTION FOR MOST PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMANTS: WEBINAR 30th OCTOBER 2026
  • “LITIGATION SHOULD BE CONDUCTED BY APPLICATIONS AND ORDERS”: “THESE EPISTOLARY COMMUNICATIONS WERE LESS THAN SATISFACTORY…”
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 6: BEING SIGNED OFF WORK DOES NOT MEAN UNABLE TO ATTEND COURT: SUSPENDED COMMITTAL ORDER MADE AGAINST JUDGMENT DEBTOR (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE AND PERSONAL INJURY LITIGATORS YOU MAY WANT TO READ THIS AS WELL…)
  • PROVING THINGS 301 : CAN AN APPLICANT IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS RELY UPON A JUDGMENT GIVEN AT TRIAL? WHAT WEIGHT SHOULD BE GIVEN TO IT?
  • EXPERT WATCH 79: WHEN A LITIGANT INSTRUCTS AN EXPERT AND THEN SEEKS PERMISSION TO RELY ON THEM: MIXED RESULTS

Top Posts

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.