Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Mitchell » Page 5

SURVIVING MITCHELL 6: "YOU GOTTA HAVE A PLAN": BE READY FOR TRIAL THE DAY YOU ISSUE

January 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

The unforgiving nature of the Mitchell decision means that litigators have to be certain that they will be able to comply with any directions that the court orders.  In effect this means that a claimant has to be ready for…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 5: CAN YOU EVEN AGREE EXTENSIONS OF TIME?

January 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The earlier post on extensions of time gained a lot of attention and numerous issues were raised at twitter.  This is such a fast moving area that a case, reported yesterday, deals with some of the issues raised.  I wanted…

TWO NEW CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: WEBB RESOLUTIONS AND LLOYD & SONS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There were two High Court cases on relief from sanctions considered today. Both were decisions  of Mr Justice Turner Here we consider Webb Resolutions –v- E-Surv Limited  [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)and M A  Lloyd –v- PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC…

TWO FURTHER DECISIONS REFUSING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LINKS TO CASES

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are two further High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was refused. Webb Resolutions -v- E Surv [2014] EWHC 49 (QB) MA Lloyd & Sons -v- PPC International [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) These are links to the decisions.  A full discussion…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 4: BE CAREFUL WHEN AGREEING VARIATIONS OF THE DIRECTIONS

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

One issue that has arisen consistently since the Mitchell decision in particular is whether the parties can agree to vary directions.  The answer is far from simple. THE RULES The rules are always a good place to start. CPR 2.11…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE? THE APPROPRIATE TEST: AN OBJECT LESSON ON LITIGATION TACTICS IN A POST-MITCHELL WORLD

January 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 With relief from sanctions being notoriously hard to obtain the question of whether a party has complied with an order, particularly an unless order, is now of critical importance. In Dinsdale Moorland Services Ltd –v- Evans 2014] EWHC 2 (Ch)…

MITCHELL: LINKS TO USEFUL ARTICLES AND POSTS

January 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Useful links

THIS POST CONTAINS THE DECISIONS RELATING TO MITCHELL AND THE CASES THAT FOLLOWED IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS. LATER LINKS CAN BE FOUND AT DISCUSSIONS OF MITCHELL AT http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/mitchell-links-to-articles-and-posts/ WHAT IS ON THIS POST 1. Zenith Chambers. 2. Indi… Enjoying this post? Become a Civil…

MITCHELL CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME: ANOTHER TWIST IN THE THEVARAJAH TALE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the case heard today of Thevarajah –v- Riordan [2014] EWCA Civ 15the Court of Appeal reiterated the rigorous nature of the Mitchell test.  Here we look at that decision in detail and the trenchant observations made by the Court….

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE CHOICE OF JUDGE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The case of Mitchell featured in the decision of Mr Justice Turner in Biljani -v- Unum Ltd[2014] EWHC 27 (QB) .  An application for the matter to be listed in front of a High Court judge was refused, part of the…

APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED WHEN PARTY FAILED TO SERVE STATEMENT OF REASONS: FULL TRANSCRIPT AVAILABLE

January 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a decision by Master Rowley in the case of Long -v- Value Properties Ltd 13/1/14 available on dropbox at https://www.dropbox.com/s/h8keoeme94gvrzp/Long%20v%20%20Value%20Properties%20%26%20Anor.pdf THE APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS This was an application for relief from sanctions ar… Enjoying this post? Become…

MITCHELL AND ABUSE OF PROCESS: ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF A CASE STRUCK OUT

January 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

Mitchell, in terms of the importance of case management, was mentioned in the High Court case of Vaughan –v-London Borough of Lewisham.  The facts were unusual, but the reference to case management powers and the importance of the economy and…

MITCHELL AND INDEMNITY INSURERS: A WORRYING TIME

January 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One obvious concern about the Mitchell fallout is the position of Indemnity insurers. This is reflected in a piece by Hill Dickinson.  The observations need to be noted. HILL DICKINSON’S POST There is a succinct summary of the decisions in…

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO  RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

Links to posts and articles on all aspects of  civil procedure. Linking does not indicate approval or agreement but that all discussion on these issues is useful.   RECENT POSTS AND ARTICLES 23rd June 2019 Herbert Smith Freehills Litigation Notes…

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS A SECOND TIME: NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: HALL –v- MINISTRY OF DEFENCE EXAMINED

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Can a claimant issue again if an action is struck because of a  failure to comply with the rules and? This is likely to become a question of considerable interest given the number of cases that are failing because of…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 3: IF YOU CANNOT COMPLY WITH A RULE OR PRACTICE DIRECTION THEN MAKE AN APPLICATION BEFORE IT IS BREACHED

December 22, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Mitchell case makes it clear that applications for relief from sanctions made after breach will be granted sparingly.  Here we consider the merits of making an application in advance of the date of breach.  WHAT THE COURT OF APPEAL…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND SERVING NOTICE OF FUNDING: A TALE OF TWO CASES

December 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 Results of relief from sanctions applications are now being reported regularly. Here we look at two apparently contrasting applications in relation to relief from sanctions and the failure to give notice of funding. Both cases were reported today; both are…

KARBHARI: THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND THE LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS

December 19, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

KARBHARI -v- AHMED http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/QB/2013/4042.html 2013] EWHC 4042 (QB) This was a  High Court case listed for seven days. On the first day of the trial the defendant’s counsel indicated that it would be necessary to amend the Defence and introduce a supplementary…

ANOTHER COURT OF APPEAL CASE ON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS : DURRANT –V- CHIEF CONSTABLE OF AVON & SOMERSET CONSTABULARY

December 17, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In the first relief from sanctions case to reach the Court of Appeal since Mitchell, the Court of Appeal reiterated the tough new approach which courts should taken when considering relief applications.  The Claimant brought a  claim against the Defendant…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: MITCHELL: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND A “GOOD” REASON: AND SO TO BED: A LOOK AT THE CASE LAW

December 17, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

  In Mitchell the Court of Appeal stated that a court should normally consider relief from sanctions in a “non-trivial” case if there were good reasons and referred to the case law relating to extending time for service of the…

FULL COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF ALDINGTON -v- ELS

December 16, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am grateful to Gordon Wignall of No 5 Chambers for sending me a copy of the full transcript of Aldington -v- ELS where a claimant was granted relief from sanctions. (The transcript is upside down – click rotate clockwise…

WEBINAR ON "SURVIVING MITCHELL":29th JANUARY 2014

December 15, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

I am broadcasting a Webinar for CLT on “Surviving Mitchell” on the 29th January 2014 at 13.00. The link for subscribing can be found at http://www.clt.co.uk/webinar.aspx?crseidcode=1695882 “This webinar which is presented by  Gordon Exall, will explain exactly what went wrong for…

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE 2: ASSUME EVERY ORDER OF THE COURT IS A PEREMPTORY ORDER.

December 14, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Some of the cases on sanctions reported this week have been highly disturbing; with cases being struck out on the morning of the trial because the bundles were not lodged three days earlier.  As a result the only safe assumption…

POST MITCHELL MAYHEM 2: A CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED

December 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Litigation Futures carries a report of a High Court case where relief from sanctions was granted. The link is at http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/exclusive-high-court-grants-first-post-mitchell-relief-sanctions Details will be added to the Mitchell Case Watch later today…. Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member…

SANCTIONS: CASE WATCH

SANCTIONS: CASE WATCH

December 12, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

This section  looks at decisions in relation to relief from sanctions and the general principles of CPR 3.9. Often there are links to the decisions themselves, together with links to posts on this blog. CASES IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER 2026 February…

SG DG PETROL: A (HIGH COURT) POST-MITCHELL DECISION ON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

December 11, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

There is a High Court decision on relief from sanctions at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/3920.html An application for relief from sanctions was dismissed. The judge went on to make general observations about how applications for relief from sanctions should be conducted. In SG DG Pet……

SURVIVING MITCHELL A PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE : 1 KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN MITCHELL AND HOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN AVOIDED

December 10, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The decision in Mitchell is already having a major impact on day to day litigation. This is the first of a series of posts which looks at the Mitchell decision and deals with the practical steps that practitioner’s must take…

THE AFTERMATH FROM MITCHELL: THIS IS GETTING REALLY, REALLY, SERIOUS

December 9, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I have been in discussions today with one barrister who estimates that, in his own practice alone, he has  already represented claimants where a total of £1 million pounds of damages have been lost as a result of a decision…

CAN MR MITCHELL STILL GET HIS COSTS? A PROFESSOR'S OPINION

December 4, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The comments section is at the bottom right hand side of this blog and a comment from Professor Hibbert made earlier this week may have been missed by many. I set it out below. No doubt this will give rise to…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT: THE LETTER OF THE LAW

December 3, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The case of Forstator -v- Python (Monty) Pictures Ltd [2013] EWHC 3759 is a case where the Court granted relief from sanctions. It was heard before the Mitchell decision but judgment was given afterwards. The judge did not hear submissions…

I NEVER LIKED THAT ORDER ANYWAY – CAN I SET IT ASIDE NOW? CONSIDERATION OF THE TIBBLES CRITERIA IN APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS”.

December 1, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the Mitchell case the claimant made an attempt to challenge and set aside one of the orders made by the Master which had been breaches. The Court gave clear guidance as to the steps to be taken if a…

DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT FOLOWING MITCHELL: ROMANO –v-K PAPERS (BLACKBURN) LTD

November 29, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The courts now have a clear basis upon which to consider applications for reinstatement following the decision in Mitchell.  The case of Romano –v- K Papers (Blackburn) Ltd an appeal heard at Manchester County Court today (29th November 2013) provides…

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A DETAILED EXAMINATION

November 28, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

There has been much comment about the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell on litigation and litigators.  Here we look, in considerable detail, at the guidance given in relation to relief from sanctions and associated case law….

MITCHELL: THE COMMENTARY CONTINUES

November 28, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The commentary on the fallout of the Mitchell decision continues apace.  One of the most interesting comments, however, comes from Sir Henry Brooke, former Lord Justice who tweets at @HenryBrooke1. Here we look at those observations and other links to…

DO YOU HAVE TO FILE FORM H IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS? SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE SURE ABOUT

November 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

 All litigators know (or should know) the central importance of Form H in civil procedure. If you don’t file the form in time then you don’t get paid. A colleague today asked me whether it was necessary to file a…

← Previous 1 … 4 5

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 5: PD57AC AND REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS: WHY LAWYERS NEED TO BE PRISED AWAY FROM THEIR COMFORT BLANKETS
  • THE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF TIME FOR APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE COURT DID NOT HAVE POWER AT THIS STAGE IN ANY EVENT
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH – AND BY THE WAY – AS IT TURNS OUT – THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH - AND BY THE WAY - AS IT TURNS OUT - THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED...
  • OPENING LINES TO START THE WEEK: "FOR CENTURIES, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNISED THAT HUMAN HEARING CAN BE DAMAGED BY EXPOSURE TO LOUD NOISE"
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST...
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED

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.