Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Limitation » Page 4

CAN A STRUCK OUT CLAIMANT ISSUE AGAIN? EXERCISE OF THE SECTION 33 DISCRETION AFTER A FIRST ACTION HAS BEEN DISMISSED.

December 11, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Striking out

One of the “open” questions following the Mitchell decision is whether a claimant refused relief from sanctions can issue again. That is an open question (which will be considered at another time).  Here we look at the court’s approach to…

← Previous 1 … 3 4

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 58: ACCIDENT IN ENGLAND, CLAIMANTS LIVING IN AUSTRALIA: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION TO CHALLENGE JURISDICTION REFUSED
  • EXPERT WATCH 81: EXPERT EVIDENCE ON APPEAL: COMPANY PERMITTED TO RELY ON IT EXPERT TO EXPLAIN WHY ITS DIRECTORS THOUGHT A REGULATOR’S EMAIL WAS A PHISHING ATTEMPT
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: IN THE RUN UP TO HALLOWEEN: MISSIVES FROM THE BENCH (OCTOBER 2021): “THAT ONE’S HALF BLIND AND HALF DEAF. I CALL HIM THE COURT OF APPEAL…”
  • THE DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT PICK AND CHOOSE THE EVIDENCE IT PUTS BEFORE THE COURT: A WITNESS STATEMENT BREACHED THE DUTY OF CANDOUR OWED: WHAT YOU LEAVE OUT CAN SOMETIMES BE MORE IMPORTANT THAT WHAT YOU PUT IN…
  • NO FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY WHERE A CLAIMANT GAVE AN ACCOUNT DIFFERENT TO HER LETTER OF CLAIM: (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE)

Top Posts

CLAIMANT'S CLAIM AGAINST INSURER FAILS: COURT OF APPEAL UPHOLD DECISION THAT THE INSURED'S FAILURE TO NOTIFY WAS A CONDITION PRECEDENT
"THIS IS NOT THE MANNER IN WHICH AN APPLICATION SHOULD BE MADE": EMAILS TO THE COURT CANNOT TAKE THE PLACE OF APPLICATIONS
NO FINDING OF FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY WHERE A CLAIMANT GAVE AN ACCOUNT DIFFERENT TO HER LETTER OF CLAIM: (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CASE)
NON-COMPLIANT CLAIMANTS ARE IN THE LAST CHANCE SALOON (AND THERE ARE 5,000 OF THEM): BUT PARTICULARS MUST BE SERVED AND ADVERSE COSTS STILL PAID
SERVICE POINTS 57: PRESENCE IN THE JURISDICTION, A LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE COST OF GETTING IT WRONG: UNSUCCESFUL CLAIMANT FACES A COSTS BILL OF £500,000...

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