Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Negligence
THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

THE 10 YEAR LONGSTOP PERIOD IN PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS: A POINT TO WATCH

August 12, 2022 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury

There is one very tricky area of limitation law that I wanted to return to following the judgment in Coote -v- Ullstein [2022] EWHC 606 (QB). The case was looked at in detail here.  However I want to concentrate on the…

NO DUTY OF CARE OWED BY A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT (ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE): EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT BEING EXPERTS: MUCH TO READ HERE

NO DUTY OF CARE OWED BY A JOINTLY INSTRUCTED EXPERT (ON THE FACTS OF THIS CASE): EXPERTS GIVING EVIDENCE ABOUT BEING EXPERTS: MUCH TO READ HERE

January 27, 2022 · by gexall · in Credibility of experts, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

The judgment of Mrs Justice Lambert in Radia v Marks [2022] EWHC 145 (QB) is essential reading for anyone who instructs experts in litigation. It is also essential reading for experts.  The judge dismissed a claim in negligence against a…

PROVING THINGS 80: PROVING A SUBROGATED CLAIM: HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS NOT RECOVERED IN FULL

PROVING THINGS 80: PROVING A SUBROGATED CLAIM: HEALTH INSURANCE COSTS NOT RECOVERED IN FULL

December 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Clinical Negligence, Damages, Members Content

It is not uncommon for an insurer to seek to add a claim for outlay to a claim.  This is particularly the case in relation to health insurers who seek to recover outlay in a claim for damages for personal…

MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION 1: IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS ALWAYS SIX YEARS

MYTHS ABOUT LIMITATION 1: IN A BREACH OF CONTRACT CASE THE LIMITATION PERIOD IS ALWAYS SIX YEARS

October 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Limitation, Members Content

This is the first of a series of short posts about “myths” about limitation that sometimes exist in litigation, in personal injury in particular.  Myth 1 is that if you are bringing a claim based on breach of contract the…

WHAT THEY DON'T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL IX: IF THEY SAY IT'LL BE "GOOD EXPERIENCE FOR YOU" - WATCH OUT...

WHAT THEY DON’T TEACH YOU AT LAW SCHOOL IX: IF THEY SAY IT’LL BE “GOOD EXPERIENCE FOR YOU” – WATCH OUT…

January 20, 2017 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Bundles, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Useful links

Here we have most (but I can’t guarantee all) of the tweets given on what they don’t teach you at law school. You will see it is an eclectic mix.  The advice given can be world weary but, for the…

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.