Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Relief from sanctions » Page 11

TWO DAYS LATE SERVICE OF NOTICE OF APPEAL IS A "TRIVIAL" ERROR: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

June 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In  Harrogate Borough Council -v- Secretary of State for Communities & Local Government & Zammitt [2014] EWHC 1506 (Admin) the appellant was two days late in serving a notice of appeal.  His Honour Judge Behrens (sitting as a judge of the…

COSTS DRAFTSMAN SIGNING COSTS BUDGET DOES NOT RENDER IT A NULLITY: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY CONSIDERED

June 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents, Uncategorized

There may be no end to the Mitchell points being taken. In a case earlier today, Americhem Europe Ltd -v- Rakem Ltd [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC) e Mr Justice Stuart-Smith considered an argument that the costs budget signed by  a…

SETTING JUDGMENT ASIDE: DELAY & PROMPTNESS

June 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

When setting aside a default judgment the court has to consider whether the application was made “promptly”. The relevance and importance of a “prompt” application has been considered several times on this blog.  The issue was considered again in Page…

FAILURE TO SERVE FORM N251: ADDITIONAL LIABILITIES & PREMIUM DISALLOWED; RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

June 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

We are seeing reports come through of  cases that were decided some time ago.  However they provide illustrations of the problems that can arise and the court’s likely approach.  Ibbertson -v- Black Horse Ltd [Maidstone County Court] is available on…

PAY COURT FEES ON TIME AND DON'T RELY ON COURT STAFF FOR LEGAL ADVICE: ANOTHER REPORTED CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED:

June 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Decadent Vapours Ltd -v- Bevan et al (Judge Jarman Q.C. Cardiff District Registry, 18th February 2014) was reported on Lawtel this morning.  It provides another warning of the dangers involved in not complying with court orders on…

WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

WHO IS WATCHING YOUR BACK? A CHECKLIST ON "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Useful links

The previous post looked at the “fish file” checklist  prepared by groups in a recent session I conducted in at one of Kerry Underwood’s courses.  A second checklist was also prepared by the groups and this related to  “defensive litigation”….

OTHER ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS: DEALING WITH THOSE "FISH FILES"

June 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Earlier posts looked at the essential checklists prepared by delegates at the “how to get sued” conference.  Missing from those checklists was any discussion of one real problem for practitioners that can often lead to problems – the “fish file”….

PROVING SOMETHING HAS BEEN POSTED: SWEAR IT TO BE TRUE

June 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Serving documents

I initially read the Court of Appeal decision of Price -v- Price [2014[ EWCA] Civ with interest because it showed that the old CPR 3.9 still applied in family proceedings.  However Jon Williams pointed out that the case has an…

YOU CAN AGREE TO EXTEND TIME NOW: BUT SHOULD YOU AGREE TO EXTENSIONS?

June 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes

Parties can agree to extend time from the 5th June.  I have already written on the dangers of the system.  However, if the dangers can be sidestepped, should a litigator agree to extend time. THE HEATED DEBATE: SHOULD PARTIES AGREE EXTENSIONS? This…

"ESSENTIAL CHECKLISTS": THE COMPLETE LIST

June 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Damages, Limitation, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out, Useful links, Witness statements

The “Essential Checklist” series developed out of a workshop series in a course I gave last month. Six groups produced six checklists.  Here is a link to them all. SERVICE OF PROCEEDINGS: (“SERVICE WITH A SMILE”) Essential points before the…

AVOIDING UNDERSETTLEMENT: THE FINAL "ESSENTIAL CHECKLIST" & A USEFUL LINK

June 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Useful links

The final list in the “essential checklist” series is on “avoiding undersettlement”. The day the course was held the Law Society Gazette had published Rachel Rothwell’s piece on Why Cannibalism is coming to PI.  One delegate noted that he had…

COURT OF APPEAL TO HEAR THREE MORE CASES ON RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS

June 2, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Court of Appeal is to hear three cases on sanctions on the 16th & 17th June. One of the cases being considered is Utilise -v-  Davies [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch) which was considered in an earlier post on this blog. The…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 20: THE GREAT BIG OVERALL CHECKLIST

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

I suspect that this series could go on indefinitely.  It is drawn to a close with a round up of the key points. KEY POINTS 1. Know what happened in Mitchell and how it could have been avoided. 2. Assume…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 19: PRACTICE "DEFENSIVE LITIGATION" OR DON'T PRACTICE AT ALL

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

This is the 19th (and penultimate) in this series on “surviving Mitchell”. What the Mitchell case makes clear is that there is now precious little room for error in civil procedure. We have to develop systems of “defensive litigation”. That…

“MITCHELL BITES TO PENALISE LITIGANTS WHO FAIL TO COMPLY”: EXTENSIONS OF TIME, APPEALS AND BAHO.

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Baho & Ors –v- Meerza [2014] EWCA Civ 669 is a further example of a litigant coming to grief because they failed to file an application in time and make the application for an extension of time…

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED

May 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

PROMPTNESS AND APPLICATIONS TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT : THE BIG YELLOW VAN –V- RAYNER (2014) IPEC (Judge Hacon) 27/05/2014 CONSIDERED  The importance of a prompt response to procedural issues and setting aside default judgment has been explored previously on this…

“FAILING TO SEE THE WOOD FOR THE TREES” AND LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND PLEADINGS : GROARKE –V- FONTAINE CONSIDERED

May 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Groarke –v- Fontaine [2014] EWHC 1679 (QB) centred on a Road Traffic Accident that happened in November 2009.  The central issue on appeal was whether a late application to amend the defence to plead contributory negligence should have been allowed….

SERVICE BY E-MAIL: SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AFTER MITCHELL AND MUCH MORE: BRETT –V- COLCHESTER HOSPITAL UNIVERSITY CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is a considerable amount of interest in the judgment of Master O’Hare in this case. Firstly  was service by e-mail good service when a party had not complied with the Practice Direction on service by electric means? Secondly what…

A DELIBERATE DECISION NOT TO FILE A WITNESS STATEMENT AND YET RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: MONDE PETROLEUM SA-V- WESTERNAZAGROS LTD CONSIDERED

May 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

In Monde Petroleum SA –v- Westernzagros Ltd (2014) QBD (Comm) (Hamblen J) 19/05/2014 a party intentionally failed to file a witness statement on time, yet relief from sanctions was granted. (The following is based on the Lawtel summary) THE FACTS…

CPR 3.9: MITCHELL AND APPLYING TO JOIN GROUP LITIGATION: HOLLOWAY -v- TRANSFORM MEDICAL GROUP

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Holloway -v- Transport Medical Group [2014] EWHC 1641 (QB) Mrs Justice Thirlwall DBE considered whether the “Mitchell” principles applied to late applications to join the register of claims following a Group Litigation Order. THE JUDGMENT The judgment is available…

SETTING ASIDE A DEFAULT JUDGMENT AFTER MITCHELL: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST?

May 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There has been much discussion of whether the Mitchell principles impact upon an application have a default judgment set aside.  There are some cases that indicate that the amended CPR 3.9 should be taken into account in relation to a…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, PRISONS AND SANITATION

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The issue of relief from sanctions was considered by Mr Justice Hickinbottom in Ashton (et al) -v- The Ministry of Justice [2014] EWHC 1624 QB. THE FACTS A large number of prisoners were bringing actions  under the European Convention alleging…

A TWO DAY BREACH IS "TRIVIAL": ANOTHER CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED AFTER LATE SERVICE OF COSTS BUDGET

May 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Azure East Midlands Ltd -v- Manchester Aiport Group Ltd [2014] EWHC 1644 (TCC) His Honour Judge Grant made an order for relief from sanctions where a costs budget was served two days late. THE BREACH The claimant filed its…

MITCHELL CASES: HAVING A TAXING TIME? THREE CASES CONSIDERED IN THE TAX CHAMBER

May 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The “Mitchell” principles have been adopted in other tribunals, not least the First Tier Chamber Tax Tribunal.  There are three recent cases where the Mitchell principles have been considered extensively by the Tribunal. The principles have had a major impact…

JACKSON L.J. ON AGREEING EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND DEFAULT COSTS CERTIFICATES: IMPORTANT DEVELOPMENTS

May 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I have already dealt with the rules to be introduced next month in relation to the parties being able to agree extensions of time in civil proceedings. Today Jackson L.J. made it clear that it was never part of his…

AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: THE NEW RULES IN FULL

May 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It required a statutory instrument to reinstate the ability to extend time that the Jackson Report never intended to take away. THE NEW RULES The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014 come into force on the 5th June 2014….

MASSIVE DELAY, SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENT AND THE MITCHELL PRINCIPLES: MID-EAST SALES LTD –v- UNITED ENGINEERING & THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN CONSIDERED

May 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One of the many moot points that arise from Mitchell is how far the amendment to the overriding objective and CPR 3.9 impact upon applications to have judgment set aside.  This issue was considered by Burton J in Mid-East Sales…

AMENDING PLEADINGS LATE AND MITCHELL: NOT A SMOOTH JOURNEY

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

What relevance do the Mitchell principles have in relation to applications to amend pleadings. Particularly when those applications are made late?  This was considered by  Mrs Justice Andrews in Dany Lions Ltd -v- Bristol Cars Ltd [2014] EWHC (QB) 928….

CHANGING THE TRIAL DATE : A CASE IN POINT: MITCHELL REMAINS A "TOP BRAND"

May 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

Ever since the introduction of the Woolf reforms the trial date has been viewed as fairly sacrosanct. Once set it is hard to change without a good reason. This position has probably hardened as a result of Mitchell.  The issue…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 3: THE "LITIGATOR'S DILEMMA": DO YOU TAKE THE "MITCHELL" POINT?

May 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

This is the third in the series examining the practical consequences of the Chartwell decision. The first post looked at the importance of serving witness statements on time,  the second at the effect on the criteria for reinstatement. Here we…

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 2: OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS IS DIFFICULT BUT NOT IMPOSSIBLE

May 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

The Court of Appeal decision in Chartwell –v- Fergies Properties  has already been considered in detail.  An earlier article dealt with the importance of serving witness statements on time.  Here we consider the implications for the principles relating to granting…

THE CRITERIA TO BE APPLIED WHEN A PARTY MAKES AN APPLICATION AHEAD OF THE DATE OF THE BREACH: THE ROBERT CRITERIA CONSIDERED

April 29, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) it was made clear that Mitchell principles did not apply in cases where an application was made prior to the date of breach.   The principles in    Robert -v- Momentum Services [2003] EWCA…

HAS PROPER DISCLOSURE BEEN GIVEN? A NEW AREA OF BATTLE. GLOBAL MARINE DRILLSHIPS LIMITED –V- WILLIAM LA BELLA [2014] EWHC 1230 (Ch) CONSIDERED

April 27, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In the post Mitchell world parties are anxious to demonstrate that their opponents have not complied with orders of the court and, consequently, should have their actions struck out.  These arguments are likely to be particularly problematic in issues relating…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: WHAT DOES “TRIVIAL” ACTUALLY MEAN? A LOOK AT THE CASES

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 If you attend one of the, numerous, “Jackson” and “Mitchell” conferences that abound at the moment you can easily make the lecturer sweat. Ask them to define “trivial”.  Whether a breach is “trivial” or not is crucial to the way…

A BUDGET SERVED A DAY LATE IS A “TRIVIAL” ERROR: WAIN –v- GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 1274 (TCC) CONSIDERED

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It was made clear in Mitchell that the courts should not concern themselves with “trivial” breaches, however what was meant by “trivial” was never defined.  In Wain –v- Gloucestershire County Council Judge Grant, sitting as a judge of the High…

WHEN IS AN APPLICATION "MADE"? A MATTER THAT COULD BE OF SOME IMPORTANCE

April 20, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of In Kaneria -v- Kaneria [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch) discussed in a previous post means that there is a highly significant difference between applications made before the date of compliance and those made afterwards.   An application made after the…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 17: MAKE ANY APPLICATION BEFORE DEFAULT AND OBTAIN REALISTIC DIRECTIONS

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation

It is no coincidence that Rule 17 is identical to Rule 3.  In fact I could easily, and without apology, repeat this principle as rules 10 – 20.  If you cannot comply with a court order, direction or rule then…

MAKING AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE DATE OF DEFAULT SAVES THE DAY: KANERIA -v- KANERIA CONSIDERED

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

The Mitchell principles govern what happens when a party requires relief from sanctions.  An open question remained as to the principles  that apply  when a party applies for an extension of time before the expiry of the date for compliance….

THE CONSEQUENCES OF CHARTWELL 1: JUST DON'T EVER SERVE WITNESS STATEMENTS LATE

April 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized, Witness statements

It is highly dangerous for litigators to view the  decision of the Court of Appeal in Chartwell -v- Fergies as any kind of step away from the Mitchell principles.  The case has already been outlined in detail in an earlier post….

TWO CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: (I) LATE WITNESS STATEMENTS (II) NO SCHEDULE OF COSTS

April 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

There are two cases reported on Lawtel this morning which exemplify problems of modern litigation and relief from sanctions. The first involves late service of a witness statement in a fatal accident case; the second the failure to file a…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 16: DEALING WITH "FISH FILES": OVERCOMING PROCRASTINATION

SURVIVING MITCHELL 16: DEALING WITH "FISH FILES": OVERCOMING PROCRASTINATION

April 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

A “fish file” is a file that has been left for so long it has started to smell. Consequently the litigator avoids it and it gets smellier and smellier. These files are always ripe. Ripe, that is, for problems to…

CAN MITCHELL BE UTILISED IF THERE ARE SEVERAL MINOR BREACHES? UTILISE -v- CRANSTOUN CONSIDERED: LATE FILING OF COSTS BUDGETS CAUSES ANOTHER PARTY TO COME TO GRIEF

April 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Utilise -v- Cranstoun [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch) Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, considered another issue arising out of the Mitchell criteria – in essence what is the effect of two trivial breaches on…

THE APPROPRIATE CRITERIA FOR REINSTATEMENT WHEN AN ACTION IS STRUCK OUT OF COURT'S OWN MOTION: HALEY -v- SIDDIQUE CONSIDERED

April 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Haley -v- Siddique [2014] EWHC 835 (Ch) Judge Hodge Q.C., sitting as a judge of the High Court, considered issues arising from a striking out order made of the court’s own motion.  His judgment states that the case provides…

ACTION STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO GIVE DISCLOSURE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Medical Supplies and Services Ltd -v- Acies & Gosling [2014] EWHC 1032 (QB) the claimant came to grief because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order for disclosure. Relief from sanctions was refused.  It provides another object…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 15: SHARE THE PAIN

April 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Most of the burden of complying with time periods and court orders lies with the solicitor.  However a solicitor’s life can be made easier by making sure that all those concerned with the litigation process know of the deadlines involved…

REPORT OF A CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED ON APPEAL TO CIRCUIT JUDGE

April 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Reports of decisions in relation to procedure, particularly relief from sanctions, are always welcome.  I am grateful to Simon Young of Kings Chambers for his report of the case of Cook -v- Danter. It is a case where a circuit…

WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 3: CASE MANAGEMENT AND EXTENSIONS OF TIME

April 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

Both Jackson reports considered that case management was closely allied with costs management. Here I want to look at two aspects – the need for a realistic timetable and agreements to extend time. DIRECTIONS MUST BE REALISTIC At 6.5 of…

ANOTHER CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE SERVED LATE

April 6, 2014 · by gexall · in Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Witness statements

I am grateful to Michael Ditchfield of Kings Chambers for his sending me details of a recent appeal where the Circuit  Judge overturned a decision where, initially, relief from sanctions had been granted. This emphasises the point that, although the…

COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSES APPEAL AGAINST RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS BEING GRANTED IN CHARTWELL ESTATES CASE

April 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Relief from sanctions was granted  by Mr Justice Globe in the case of Chartwell Estates -v- Fergies and this has been discussed, at length, in earlier posts in this blog.  The Court of Appeal dismissed the defendant’s appeal today. Reasons…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT AGAIN: MCTEAR CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

March 31, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Striking out, Witness statements

The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] EWHC 722 (Ch) was looked at briefly in  an earlier post in relation to the number of cases cited to the Court.  Here we look at the substantive decision in relation to applications…

← Previous 1 … 10 11 12 13 Next →

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

  • AN OFFER TO SETTLE THAT DOES NOT INCLUDE PROVISION FOR COSTS MAY WELL BE INEFFECTIVE: IT CERTAINLY WILL NOT LEAD TO A PETITION BEING STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION TODAY
  • IF YOU ARE ASKING FOR AN EXPEDITED TRIAL – MAKE SURE YOU ARE AVAILABLE…: JUDGE SAYS THE PARTIES SHOULD HAVE CHECKED THIS ISSUE
  • COST BITES 398: MORE BUDGETING IN THE MERCEDES-BENZ LITIGATION: ONLY A “MODEST” REDUCTION OF £1 MILLION HERE: BUT WHY (THE COURT ASKS) WEREN’T REALISTICALLY REDUCED FIGURES PUT FORWARD IN THE FIRST PLACE?
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: “ADVOCACY – THE JUDGE’S VIEW: “AVOID BULLSHIT, SMOKE AND MIRRORS” (OH AND “WELL PADDED VANITY” (JUNE 2016
  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026

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.