Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
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

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, 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

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, 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

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, 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…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 31,037 other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • ITS OFFICIAL – THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT “WAREHOUSING” AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY
  • UNDERSTANDING THE LAW RELATING TO FATAL ACCIDENTS: WEBINAR 8th FEBRUARY 2023
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • ITS OFFICIAL - THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER: READ IT HERE: CONTEST WINNER
  • CLAIMANT FAILS IN AN APPLICATION FOR WASTED COSTS AGAINST HIS OWN LAWYERS: HOWEVER THERE IS AN IMPORTANT LESSON HERE
  • FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY FOUND WHEN AN INVOICE WAS DOCTORED: NOT EVERYTHING CAN BE SAID WITH FLOWERS
  • NO DUTY ON A PARTY TO INFORM AN OPPOSING PARTY THEY ARE MAKING AN ERROR: THE APPEAL JUDGMENT IN PHOENIX IN FULL:
  • WHAT IS THE BEST COSTS ADVICE YOU CAN GIVE TO A YOUNG LAWYER? THE ENTRIES

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • Website of 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, Catastrophic Injury Group
  • www.Bailii.org

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin