Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Judicial Review
THE "SEVEN DAY" DOCUMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: YOU DON'T PLAN NOT TO COMPLY - BUT...

THE “SEVEN DAY” DOCUMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: YOU DON’T PLAN NOT TO COMPLY – BUT…

March 26, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Bundles, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In civil procedure it is often the failure to comply with clear and obvious rules that can cause difficulties or annoyance. We have an example here in the Planning Court (however the rules in question apply to all judicial review…

IF FINDINGS OF DISHONESTY ARE TO BE MADE THEN WITNESSES HAVE TO BE HEARD

June 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Witness statements

Two cases in two days have shown the difficulties that arise when findings of dishonesty are made by judges without hearing evidence. Here we look at the difficulties that arose when a judge held a trial without hearing evidence and…

LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS IN JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS: DON'T GO TO COLLEGE – JUST READ THE RULES

June 16, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In R (on the application of the London College of Finance & Accounting) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1688 (Admin) Mr Justice Cobb made some important observations in relation to the late service of evidence…

DENTON IN THE CONTEXT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: PUBLIC INTEREST A HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERATION

June 13, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In The Queen (on the application of Charith Missaka Wijesinghe) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWHC 1558(Admin) HH Judge Deborah Taylor (sitting as a judge of the High Court) considered the Denton principles in relation to an…

DENTON, MITCHELL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: PUBLIC INTEREST IS A "HIGHLY SIGNIFICANT FACTOR"

December 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Denton and Mitchell criteria were considered, in passing, in R (RA-Nigeria) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWHC 4073(Admin). Where Andrew Thomas QC, sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge, considered an application that the Defendant…

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

  • SERVICE POINTS 43: WHY CPR 6.15 IS NOT THE “CAVALRY” COMING OVER THE HILL TO SAVE YOU IF THE CLAIM FORM HAS NOT BEEN SERVED PROPERLY
  • SERVICE POINTS 42: A £82 MILLION POUND FAILS BECAUSE THE CLAIM FORM WAS SENT BY EMAIL TO SOLICITORS WHO HAD NOT STATED THAT THEY WOULD ACCEPT SERVICE: AN OLD ISSUE (AND A BIG ONE)
  • COST BITES 391: TOO MUCH CORRESPONDENCE, GRADE C RATES NOT INCREASED AND “SO CALLED” SKELETON ARGUMENTS, WHICH REPEAT THE CONTENTS OF OVER-LENGTHY WITNESS STATEMENTS
  • AVOIDING THE PITFALLS: BUNDLES, WITNESSES AND PREPARING FOR TRIAL: WEBINAR ON 29th MAY 2026: IT MAY BE A WHOLE BUNDLE OF FUN
  • COST BITES 391: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLDS DECISION THAT SOLICITOR’S BILL SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT “NIL”: THERE IS NO “RESTITUTIONARY” RIGHT TO DAMAGES WHERE THE CFA ITSELF MADE EXPRESS PROVISIONS FOR THESE CIRCUMSTANCES

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.