Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Overriding Objective
THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AND CPR CANNOT BE USED TO OVERRIDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT CASES BE DEALT WITH "JUSTLY": HIGH COURT DECISION

THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AND CPR CANNOT BE USED TO OVERRIDE THE REQUIREMENT THAT CASES BE DEALT WITH “JUSTLY”: HIGH COURT DECISION

March 30, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Injunctions, Members Content

The judgment of Mr Justice Lane in Ibrahim v London Borough of Haringey & Anor [2021] EWHC 731 shows an unsuccessful attempt to argue that the “overriding objective” justified a preliminary finding made after the court did not hear evidence….

CASE MANAGEMENT, "RELEVANCE" AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT "IN TERROREM": MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

CASE MANAGEMENT, “RELEVANCE” AND ATTEMPTS TO HOLD THE COURT “IN TERROREM”: MORE ON THE POST OFFICE CASE (SOME EXTRAORDINARY ISSUES HERE)

March 16, 2019 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Conduct, Members Content

I am returning to the judgment in Bates & Ors v Post Office Ltd (No 3) [2019] EWHC 606 (QB) because parts of the judgment set out arguments and conduct of litigation that is, to say the least, unusual.   This part…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUTY UNDER THE CPR TO POINT OUT TECHNICAL ERRORS (OR WHY LIFE HAS SUDDENLY GOT A LOT HARDER FOR DEFENDANT LAWYERS)

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANTS HAVE A DUTY UNDER THE CPR TO POINT OUT TECHNICAL ERRORS (OR WHY LIFE HAS SUDDENLY GOT A LOT HARDER FOR DEFENDANT LAWYERS)

March 21, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

NB THIS DECISION WAS OVERTURNED ON APPEAL – SEE THE POST HERE I wrote earlier this week about the “tantalising” judgment of Master Bowles in the case of  Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare Distribution Ltd [2018] EWHC 334 (Ch). At…

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A  DUTY ON A DEFENDANT'S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM AFTER BARTON: IS THERE A DUTY ON A DEFENDANT’S SOLICITOR TO POINT OUT A MISTAKE?

March 20, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Service of the claim form, Serving documents

It was unlikely that the decision in Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12 would put an end to all issues relating to service of the claim form.  There is a tantalising judgment* of Master Bowles in Woodward & Anor v Phoenix Healthcare…

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…

KNOW (AND FOLLOW) THE RULES - OR ELSE: DPP COPS IT.

KNOW (AND FOLLOW) THE RULES – OR ELSE: DPP COPS IT.

April 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content

There is some irony in the decision of Mr Justice Fraser in R (RA) -v- The Director of Public Prosecutions [2017] EWHC 714 (Admin).  The claimant, a litigant in person, complied with the rules. The defendant, a specialised government department…

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS, ADJOURNMENTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE

LATE SKELETON ARGUMENTS, ADJOURNMENTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE

March 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Appeals, Members Content, Written advocacy

In Owgilo -v- The General Medical Council [2017] EWHC 419(Admin) Mr Justice Dove considered the situation when a witness statement was served late and the applicant requested an adjournment.  The overriding objective played a prominent part in the decisions made….

EXPERTS AND THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE: DEFENDANT ALLOWED TO RELY ON EXPERT ALSO USED BY CLAIMANT

February 15, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Expert evidence, Experts, Members Content

In Wheeldon Brothers Waste Limited -v- Millennium  Insurance Company Limited [2017] EWHC 218 (TCC) Mr Justice Coulson allowed the defendant to rely on an expert that had also been instructed by the claimant. The circumstances are unusual and the case needs…

AMENDMENT TO ADD NEW ISSUES THAT HAVE ARISEN SINCE ISSUE: CONSIDER THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE AND NOT THE RSC

February 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Amendment, Civil Procedure, Members Content

I said that there would be two posts about the judgment of Master Marsh in The Football Association Premier League Limited -v- O’Donovan [2017] EWHC 152 (Ch).  The first looked at the lifting of the automatic stay. Here we look…

APPLICATIONS ARE EXPENSIVE: NINE POINTS FROM AUSTRALIA TO REDUCE COSTS

March 31, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Members Content, Proportionality, Uncategorized

Given the recent increase in court fees  in relation to applications it is prudent for everyone involved to look for a means to avoid the need for applications, or reduce their client’s exposure to costs.  Similar problems are faced throughout…

"INAPPROPRIATE TECHNICAL GAMES": ANOTHER CASE ABOUT SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM: DEFENDANT SNAPPED INTO SHAPE

March 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Serving documents, Statements of Truth, Striking out, Uncategorized

The judgment of His Honour Judge Hacon in Abbott -v-Econowall Ltd [2016] EWHC 660 (IPEC) contains some important observations about the conduct expected in litigation. Also some important lessons in relation to agreeing extensions of time for service. “…parties to…

DAMNED IF YOU DO: DAMNED IF YOU DON'T: AGREEING COSTS BUDGETS AND COMPLYING WITH THE OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE

October 31, 2015 · by gexall · in Assessment of Costs, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Uncategorized

“Are lawyers colluding on fees?”, asked Rachel Rothwell in the Law Society Gazette yesterday.  Rachel was reporting on a concern, albeit a low key one expressed by some judges that parties are “colluding” to keep their fees high in costs…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.