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 12

READ LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY: VIEWS OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS ON MITCHELL

March 24, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Anyone interested in how the Mitchell principles should be construed and may develop should read Litigation Futures  today and its report of the Civil Justice Council of the 24th March 2014. CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS In…

MITCHELL PRINCIPLES APPLIED IN TAX TRIBUNAL

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

In Mr and Mrs B -v- Revenue & Customs the First Tier tribunal (tax) considered whether the Mitchell principles applied to permissions to appeal out of time in the first-tier tribunal tax chamber. “The law 42.         There is no guidance in…

COULD CPR 3.10 BE THE LITIGATORS NEW BEST FRIEND? THE IMPLICATIONS OF INTEGRAL PETROLEUM CONSIDERED (AND THEY ARE ENORMOUS)

March 23, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

In Integral Petroleum SA -v- SCU Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702 (Comm) Popplewell held that the provisions of CPR 3.10 meant that  service of the particulars of claim by e-mail could be good service and the default judgment entered thereafter…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 13: READ KERRY'S RULES OF SURVIVAL

March 18, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

At the end of the previous post on Surviving Mitchell I wrote that there were important issues of law firm management which needed to be addressed and that, perhaps, Kerry Underwood would be better placed than me to address them….

WHAT WOULD THE SUPREME COURT THINK ABOUT MATTERS RELATING TO PROCEDURE? CLUES FROM THE PRIVY COUNCIL?

March 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case, Striking out

The Mitchell case was not appealed.  Practitioners have no clue as to the approach of the Supreme Court to matters of procedure. However a decision of the Privy Council on the 3rd March makes interesting reading as to potential construction…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 12: READ LEGAL ORANGE AND LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY

March 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The links section of this blog points readers to many and various useful posts and articles on procedure.  Today, however there are two that need singling out as part of the “Surviving Mitchell” strategy. LEGAL ORANGE Reading Mitchell-Proofing your claim…

THREE NEW HIGH COURT CASES AND MITCHELL: A SUMMARY

March 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Such is the all embracing nature of the Mitchell decision that decisions are coming through on a daily basis. There were two cases that referred to Mitchell on Lawtel this morning (11th March 2014) and another which was an application…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 11: BE PROMPT: BE VERY PROMPT

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

Two recent cases have emphasised the importance of a prompt response to procedural issues. Anything other than “promptness” courts danger with the courts. The duty to act “promptly” does not just apply to making applications for relief from sanctions. A…

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA AND AMENDING PLEADINGS: A NEW CASE TO CONSIDER

March 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Statements of Case

I have added the case of Hague Plant Ltd -v- Hague [2014] EWHC 568 (Ch) to the “Mitchell Watch” section. It concerned a second application to amend the Particulars of Claim in a complex and long running commercial case.  I will…

NO JUDGMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: MIAH V JALIL CONSIDERED

March 7, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Miaj –v- Jalil  (CA 6/3/2014) is reported briefly on Lawtel today. It involves the correct approach of the Court after granting relief from sanctions. More detailed commentary, will follow once the full transcript is available. THE FACTS…

LATE SERVICE OF WITNESS STATEMENTS: CHARTWELL -v- FERGIES CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

March 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The case of Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd -v- Fergies Properties Ltd [2014] EWHC 438 (QB) has been dealt with in an earlier post. At that stage a Lawtel summary of the case was available.  The full transcript is now released. CHARTWELL:…

DELAY IN MAKING APPLICATIONS CAN BE FATAL: SAMARA -V- MBI APPLICATION TO HAVE JUDGMENT SET ASIDE REFUSED ON GROUNDS OF DELAY

March 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of  Samara –v- MBI & Partners EWHC 563 (QB) considers whether the “Mitchell” criteria is relevant to applications to have judgment set aside. THE FACTS The claimant entered judgment in default. It was more than a year later, after…

ANOTHER HIGH COURT DECISION: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: CLARKE –V- BARCLAYS BANK CONSIDERED

March 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The Clarke –v- Barclays Bank [2014] EWHC decision is interesting for a number of reasons. Among other things it provides object lessons in the dangers of failing to make prompt applications and assuming cases will settle. It also highlights the…

SERVICE OF DOCUMENTS BY E-MAIL: A USEFUL BLAST FROM THE PAST

February 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

The problems of serving by e-mail have been discussed several times on this blog.  The need for the recipient to “opt in” to receipt coupled with potential problems in proving service can give rise to difficulties.   I know from e-mails…

REFUSAL OF EXTENSION OF TIME TO SERVE PARTICULARS OF CLAIM: AEI –v- ALSTOM UK CONSIDERED

February 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Cases relating to relief from sanctions are being reported on a daily basis. Here we look at the decision yesterday of Mr Justice Smith in Associated Electrical Industries Ltd –v- Alstom Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 4330 (Com).  A case where…

HEAD TURNING, NAVIGATION AND MITCHELL PART 2: A CLOSER EXAMINATION OF SUMMIT NAVIGATION

February 22, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I set out the main part of the judgment of Leggatt J in Summit Navigation Ltd –v- Generali Romani [2014] EWHC (Comm) yesterday.  Here I look at the salient parts of the judgment and highlight the very real dilemma that…

“STANDING MITCHELL ON ITS HEAD”: YOU SHOULDN’T EVEN BE TAKING THE POINT SAYS HIGH COURT JUDGE: WHY LITIGATORS ARE LIVING WITH THE MITCHELL DILEMMA

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

Some of the (repeatable) epithets used to describe the consequence of the Mitchell judgment are “mayhem” “madness” and “mess”. In  Summit Navigation Ltd-v- Generalia Romonia [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm) Mr Justice Legatt was critical of a party who took a…

HAVE YOU BEEN "MITCHELLED"? THE PROBLEMS OF WITHOUT NOTICE ORDERS: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

I am grateful to Simon Baskind from Cohen Cramer solicitors in Leeds for the following account of a “Mitchell” problem. ACTION STRUCK OUT BY THE COURT FOR NO GOOD REASON “I know we are all probably suffering from Mitchell overload…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED: DID THE COURT OF APPEAL TURN A BLIND EYE TO MITCHELL? NELSON -v- CIRCLE CONSIDERED

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

It is unusual to see the Court of Appeal granting relief from sanctions without reference to CPR 3.9 or the decision in Mitchell. That is precisely what happened in Nelson –v- Circle Thirty Three Housing Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ…

REMEMBERING THAT CASE MANAGEMENT HAS A POINT AND PURPOSE: A WORKING EXAMPLE OF PROBLEMATIC PREPARATION

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In the furore that now surrounds civil procedure it is often forgotten that the rules of civil procedure are a means to an end. That end being that there IS a fair trial on the disputed issues between the parties,….

SURVIVING MITCHELL 10: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME YET AGAIN: NEW STANDARD DIRECTIONS

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The problems surrounding agreements to extend time remain a constant headache for litigators ever since the decision in Lloyd stated that it was not open to the parties to agree to extend time by consent.  Here we look at the…

MAKING SURE YOUR COMPLIANCE IS SHIP SHAPE: LAKATAMIA SHIPPING CO LTD –V- NOBU SU CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

February 17, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

This decision by Hamblen J and reported at [2014] EWHC 275 was dealt with briefly last week.  Here we take a detailed look at the case which involves several issues, including: Time for compliance with an order. The meaning of…

LAKATAMIA SHIPPING -v- NOBU SU: A TRIVIAL BREACH CONSIDERED

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Relief from sanctions was granted by Hamblen J in the case of Lakatamia Shipping -v- Nobu Su [2014] EWHC 275 (Comm). A full blog post on the case will will follow.  For the time being I will note his conclusion….

NEWLAND CONSIDERS NEW GROUND: LOSS OF LEGAL REPRESENTATION NOT A “GOOD REASON” FOR OBTAINING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS.

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The case of Newland –v- Toba Trading involves some complex facts.  However it is important that it is reviewed n detail because there are important observations on civil procedure. In particular whether a party should apply for a review or…

SANCTIONS: EXTENDING TIME AND DISPUTING THE JURISDICTION: PART 11 AND THE MITCHELL CRITERIA

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Service of the claim form

The Mitchell criteria were considered by Mr Justice Blair in S.E.T. Select Engineering GMBH –v- F&M Bunkering Ltd [2014] EWHC 192 (Comm). There are some interesting observations about whether relief from sanctions applies when an application to dispute jurisdiction is…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE OF A FAILURE TO ARRANGE A TELEPHONE HEARING: WHAT HAPPENED NEXT AND WHAT WOULD HAPPEN NOW?

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

JONES –V- WEALTH MANAGEMENT (UK) LTD (2014) Ch D (Arnold J) 12/02/2014 This case is reported briefly on Lawtel today. It concerns an application for relief from sanctions in insolvency proceedings. The relief from sanctions application was made prior to…

THE DANGERS OF SERVING BY E-MAIL: A WORKING EXAMPLE

February 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Serving documents

A recent post  looked at potential problems with serving documents by e-mail. That this is a very real issue is shown by a report of a decision sent to me by counsel.  The full details of the case are withheld. …

THE REMAINING PROBLEM OF HISTORICAL AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: USEFUL GUIDANCE FROM PREVIOUS AUTHORITIES ON CIVIL PROCEDURE

February 12, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 ANDREW WILKEY –V- BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION [2002] EWCA Civ 1561 Wilkey was a case in which the Court of Appeal considered the practical impact of the decision in Godwin v Swindon Borough Council [2002] 1 WLR 997 and Anderton v…

Chambers v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust: A detailed examination as to why the defendant could not adduce its expert evidence

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

CHAMBERS –V- BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST [2013] EWHC (QB) (Master Cook ) (18/12/13) Chambers -v- Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust-1 This case  highlights the fact that defendants are far from immune from the problems caused by Mitchell. THE FACTS Chambers was…

DILATORY CONDUCT BY DEFENDANT CAUSES IT TO BE REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERTS

February 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation

There is an important decision of Master Cook in the case of Chambers -v-Buckingham  Healthcare NHS Trust available at dropbox The case highlights the fact that defendants  too can fall foul of the problems caused by Mitchell.  I will prepare…

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE BUDGET IS PROVIDED INSTEAD OF THREE? IS THERE A BREACH AND WOULD THE COURT GRANT RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS?

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

Arguments about the form of compliance are likely to become as commonplace as about the time of compliance.   These arguments were considered by Master Kay Q.C. Important observations are made about the appropriate form for costs budgets when one or…

MITCHELL IN THE CONTEXT OF A TAX APPEAL: HMRC HIT A STONE WALL.

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

As previous posts have shown the Mitchell criteria are being considered in wider contexts.  In R&CC –v- McCarthy & Stone (Developments) Limited the Upper Tribunal (Finance and Tax) applied it to the government’s application to appeal a decision out of…

MITCHELL AND SANCTIONS IN THE CONTEXT OF JUDICIAL REVIEW: WAS IT WORTH THE CANDLE?

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

It is clear that the Mitchell principles are being applied widely. In The Queen on the Application of Royal Free London NHS Foundation Trust, Mr Justice Coulson considered the principles in the context of a late application in judicial review…

SURVIVING MITCHELL 9: AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME AGAIN! LLOYD & ITS PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCES

February 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There is now a lot of evidence of parties taking “opportunistic” points in relation to procedure. That is pointing to historic breaches, often months before a hearing/application, and arguing that these breaches mean that the case/defence should be struck out…

SURVIVAL AFTER MITCHELL: 30 POINT PLAN: WEBINAR AVAILABLE ON DEMAND

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

The CLT Webinar I did last week on 30 points of avoiding problems after Mitchell is now available on demand  from CLT. Not only is this an economic way to get you training done it is a whole lot cheaper than…

MAKE SURE YOUR WITNESS STATEMENT PROVES YOUR CASE

January 26, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

 The genesis of this article is a tweet earlier today where a solicitor reported that a claim for the cost of hire and storage had been struck out because the witness statement was deficient. “C entire hire, storage & recovery…

TWO NEW CASES WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: WEBB RESOLUTIONS AND LLOYD & SONS CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

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

There were two High Court cases on relief from sanctions considered today. Both were decisions  of Mr Justice Turner Here we consider Webb Resolutions –v- E-Surv Limited  [2014] EWHC 49 (QB)and M A  Lloyd –v- PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC…

TWO FURTHER DECISIONS REFUSING RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: LINKS TO CASES

January 21, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There are two further High Court decisions where relief from sanctions was refused. Webb Resolutions -v- E Surv [2014] EWHC 49 (QB) MA Lloyd & Sons -v- PPC International [2014] EWHC 41 (QB) These are links to the decisions.  A full discussion…

HAVE YOU COMPLIED WITH AN ORDER FOR DISCLOSURE? THE APPROPRIATE TEST: AN OBJECT LESSON ON LITIGATION TACTICS IN A POST-MITCHELL WORLD

January 19, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 With relief from sanctions being notoriously hard to obtain the question of whether a party has complied with an order, particularly an unless order, is now of critical importance. In Dinsdale Moorland Services Ltd –v- Evans 2014] EWHC 2 (Ch)…

MITCHELL CONSIDERED BY THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR A THIRD TIME: ANOTHER TWIST IN THE THEVARAJAH TALE

January 16, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the case heard today of Thevarajah –v- Riordan [2014] EWCA Civ 15the Court of Appeal reiterated the rigorous nature of the Mitchell test.  Here we look at that decision in detail and the trenchant observations made by the Court….

MITCHELL AND INDEMNITY INSURERS: A WORRYING TIME

January 9, 2014 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

One obvious concern about the Mitchell fallout is the position of Indemnity insurers. This is reflected in a piece by Hill Dickinson.  The observations need to be noted. HILL DICKINSON’S POST There is a succinct summary of the decisions in…

DO YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? ANOTHER KEY ISSUE PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BE CERTAIN ABOUT

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

There was an interesting debate on twitter on Friday evening about whether Mitchell was being cited too widely.  It was reported that, in some cases district judges had rejected the argument that when parties were applying for extension of time…

SECOND ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: REPORT OF FIRST INSTANCE DECISION

January 3, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

Searches for “abuse of process and section action” formed more than half of the search terms that brought people to this blog earlier in the week.  It is clear that this is going to be a major subject of litigation…

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO  RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

CIVIL PROCEDURE, COSTS & SANCTIONS: LINKS TO RECENT ARTICLES AND POST

December 27, 2013 · by gexall · in Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Costs, Limitation, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Useful links

Links to posts and articles on all aspects of  civil procedure. Linking does not indicate approval or agreement but that all discussion on these issues is useful.   RECENT POSTS AND ARTICLES 23rd June 2019 Herbert Smith Freehills Litigation Notes…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AND SERVING NOTICE OF FUNDING: A TALE OF TWO CASES

December 20, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

 Results of relief from sanctions applications are now being reported regularly. Here we look at two apparently contrasting applications in relation to relief from sanctions and the failure to give notice of funding. Both cases were reported today; both are…

FULL COPY OF TRANSCRIPT OF ALDINGTON -v- ELS

December 16, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

I am grateful to Gordon Wignall of No 5 Chambers for sending me a copy of the full transcript of Aldington -v- ELS where a claimant was granted relief from sanctions. (The transcript is upside down – click rotate clockwise…

POST MITCHELL MAYHEM 2: A CASE WHERE RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WAS GRANTED

December 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

Litigation Futures carries a report of a High Court case where relief from sanctions was granted. The link is at http://www.litigationfutures.com/news/exclusive-high-court-grants-first-post-mitchell-relief-sanctions Details will be added to the Mitchell Case Watch later today…. Enjoying this post? Become a Civil Litigation Brief member…

I NEVER LIKED THAT ORDER ANYWAY – CAN I SET IT ASIDE NOW? CONSIDERATION OF THE TIBBLES CRITERIA IN APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS”.

December 1, 2013 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

In the Mitchell case the claimant made an attempt to challenge and set aside one of the orders made by the Master which had been breaches. The Court gave clear guidance as to the steps to be taken if a…

DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT FOLOWING MITCHELL: ROMANO –v-K PAPERS (BLACKBURN) LTD

November 29, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

The courts now have a clear basis upon which to consider applications for reinstatement following the decision in Mitchell.  The case of Romano –v- K Papers (Blackburn) Ltd an appeal heard at Manchester County Court today (29th November 2013) provides…

INTERESTING FIRST INSTANCE DECISION ON STRIKING OUT SPECIAL DAMAGES BECAUSE OF DILATORY CONDUCT BY THE CLAIMANT

November 13, 2013 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Striking out

The 9sjs website has an interesting report of a decision in the Bow County Court where the judge struck out a claim for £220,000 on the grounds that the claimant had not complied with directions.  See the report at http://www.9sjs.com/assets/Uploads/ozbay.pdf It…

← Previous 1 … 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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • COMMERCIAL LITIGATORS ON THE NAUGHTY STEP 5: PD57AC AND REFERENCE TO DOCUMENTS: WHY LAWYERS NEED TO BE PRISED AWAY FROM THEIR COMFORT BLANKETS
  • THE DEFENDANT WAS OUT OF TIME FOR APPLYING FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL: THE COURT DID NOT HAVE POWER AT THIS STAGE IN ANY EVENT
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED…
  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH – AND BY THE WAY – AS IT TURNS OUT – THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE

Top Posts

  • SERVICE POINTS 37 : IS SERVICE ON A P.0. BOX GOOD SERVICE? (OH - AND BY THE WAY - AS IT TURNS OUT - THE CLAIM FORM WAS NEVER, IN FACT, SERVED AT ALL): A BIT OF A SURPRISE FOR THE CLAIMANT AT THE APPEAL STAGE
  • IS AN APPLICATION VALID IF THE INCORRECT COURT FEE IS PAID? THE ISSUES CONSIDERED...
  • OPENING LINES TO START THE WEEK: "FOR CENTURIES, IT HAS BEEN RECOGNISED THAT HUMAN HEARING CAN BE DAMAGED BY EXPOSURE TO LOUD NOISE"
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: WHEN YOU ARE SEEKING PERMISSION TO RELY ON EXPERT EVIDENCE THE COURT HAS TO KNOW HOW MUCH IT WILL ALL COST...
  • ACTION STRUCK OUT UNDER CPR 3.4(2)(c) FOR NON COMPLIANCE: DENTON PRINCIPLES APPLIED

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.