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
PART 18 REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC ASPECT OF LITIGATION, NOR SHOULD THEY BE MADE AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE: HIGH COURT DECISION

PART 18 REQUESTS SHOULD NOT BE AUTOMATIC ASPECT OF LITIGATION, NOR SHOULD THEY BE MADE AS A MATTER OF ROUTINE: HIGH COURT DECISION

March 31, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The judgment of Richard Salter QC (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) in  Al Saud & Anor v Gibbs & Anor [2022] EWHC 706 (Comm) contains a detailed consideration of the rules and case law relating to…

GOING FOR A SONG: THE DANGERS OF DOING NOTHING WHEN PART 18 QUESTIONS ARE SERVED, AND ARGUING "NOT" ENTITLED WHEN A COURT ORDER HAS BEEN MADE:

GOING FOR A SONG: THE DANGERS OF DOING NOTHING WHEN PART 18 QUESTIONS ARE SERVED, AND ARGUING “NOT” ENTITLED WHEN A COURT ORDER HAS BEEN MADE:

October 28, 2020 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The judgment of Master Kay in Sheeran & Ors v Chokri & Ors [2020] EWHC 2806 (Ch) provides an important reminder that a Part 18 request cannot simply be ignored.  Further once a court makes an order that a party…

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 83: PART 18 REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CIVIL PROCEDURE BACK TO BASICS 83: PART 18 REQUESTS FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

September 8, 2020 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Part 18 requests are often misused.  The Practice Direction states “A Request should be concise and strictly confined to matters which are reasonably necessary and proportionate to enable the first party to prepare his own case or to understand the…

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PART 18 REQUESTS PROPERLY LEADS TO STRIKE OUT: NO SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY IN RELATION TO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

FAILURE TO RESPOND TO PART 18 REQUESTS PROPERLY LEADS TO STRIKE OUT: NO SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY IN RELATION TO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

July 5, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

There are relatively few reported cases about Part 18 questions.  The decision of the Court of Appeal today in Griffith -v- Gourgey [2017] EWCA Civ 926 shows the dangers of failing to respond fully and properly. “This shows the necessity…

CLIFF, THE BBC AND PART 18 OF THE CPR: "WE DON'T TALK ANY MORE"

CLIFF, THE BBC AND PART 18 OF THE CPR: “WE DON’T TALK ANY MORE”

May 26, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Sir Cliff Richard OBE -v- The British Broadcasting Corporation [2017] EWHC 1291 (Ch) Mr Justice Mann considered an issue of whether the BBC should answer Part 18 questions. It is unusual for one Part 18 question to be the…

PLEADING A DEFENCE PROPERLY: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A "NON-ADMISSION" & A "DENIAL" EXPLORED

July 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

The decision of Mr Justice Bean in Dil -v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis [2014] EWHC 2184 (QB)  relates to a police force’s obligations in relation to the disclosure of details of undercover operations and informers.  However it also deals…

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

  • “I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS A CASE IN WHICH SO LITTLE RESPECT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE COURT”: INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES; OVER-LENGTHY SKELETONS; ENORMOUS BUNDLES (OH AND AN ATTITUDE OF “WE’LL COME INTO COURT WHEN WE WANT TO”…): I CAN’T RECALL JUDICIAL CRITICISM MUCH STRONGER THAN THIS,
  • COST BITES 415: A LOOK AT SOME SUMMARY ASSESSMENTS IN AN ACTION: HOURLY RATES NOT GOING FOR A SONG
  • WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN’T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN “AIR OF UNREALITY” ABOUT THEM
  • COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER
  • CIVIL PROCEDURE, OPAQUE EVIDENCE AND “YOU SHOULD HAVE KNOWN”: ARGUMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN REJECTED BY THE COURTS – TWO EXAMPLES AND THE UNHAPPY CONSEQUENCES FOR THE LITIGANTS…

Top Posts

REMEMBER NEW COURT FEES CAME INTO FORCE TODAY: SEE THEM HERE
WHY PRINCE HARRY (AND OTHER PROMINENT CLAIMANTS) LOST WHEN THE JUDGE FOUND THAT THEY WERE ALL HONEST WITNESSES - BUT OTHER WITNESSES THEY CALLED PROVED TO BE "HOSTILE"
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
HALLUCINATED CASE LAW AND THE CROWN PROSECUTION SERVICE (OF ALL BODIES...)
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?

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.