Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Part 18 Requests
THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 92: THE NEED TO PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATIONS: DEFENDANTS' (LARGELY)  SUCCESSFUL REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDED BEFORE THEY FILED A DEFENCE

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 92: THE NEED TO PROVIDE PARTICULARS OF SIGNIFICANT ALLEGATIONS: DEFENDANTS’ (LARGELY) SUCCESSFUL REQUEST FOR FURTHER INFORMATION NEEDED BEFORE THEY FILED A DEFENCE

September 18, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

Reports relating to requests for further information are relatively rare. In this case the judge considers the defendants’ request in detail.  The claimant was not ordered to answer all of the questions raised. However the judgment does illustrate important issues…

DOES THE HEADING MATTER? IS A PART 18 REQUEST VALID IF IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES?

DOES THE HEADING MATTER? IS A PART 18 REQUEST VALID IF IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES?

June 23, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

What should the court’s approach be if a party serves a Part 18 request but, for various reasons,  it does not comply with the rules?  The respondent to the request in this case took the point.  The Master had to…

PART 18 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGES REFUSED: "NEITHER REASONABLE OR PROPORTIONATE"

PART 18 REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DAMAGES REFUSED: “NEITHER REASONABLE OR PROPORTIONATE”

September 15, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor [2019] EWHC 3620 (Ch) Master Kaye refused an application that a party provide further information in relation to damages. “Part 18 requests should be for the purpose of providing further information…

FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REPLIES TO PART 18 QUESTIONS LEADS TO ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

April 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In his judgment today in Griffith -v- Gourgey [2015] EWHC 1080 (Ch) Mr Justice Simon addressed the issue of whether an action stands struck out if a party gives inadequate replies to Part 18 questions after a peremptory order has…

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

  • EXPERT WATCH 82: THE PROFOUND DANGERS OF AN EXPERT USING AI: “A SIGNIFICANT GAP BETWEEN THE VOICE AND OPINION OF THE EXPERT AND THE REPORT WHICH SHE HAS FILED”
  • 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…

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

Loading Comments...

You must be logged in to post a comment.