Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Road Traffic Protocol
MISTAKES AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIED: A WORKING EXAMPLE

MISTAKES AND THE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: DOCTRINE OF MISTAKE APPLIED: A WORKING EXAMPLE

March 14, 2023 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

In Doyle -v- the NFU (St Helens County Court 24th February 2023) Deputy District Judge Murray held that the doctrine of mistake applied to offers made on the Pre-Action Protocol for road traffic accidents. I am grateful to solicitor Jamil…

THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED

THE USE OF A SECOND REPORT IN THE LOW VALUE ROAD TRAFFIC PROTOCOL: FAILURE TO DISCLOSE FIRST REPORT TO THE DEFENDANT DID NOT LEAD TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE BEING EXCLUDED

February 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury

I am grateful to barrister Kriti Upadhyay for sending me copies of the judgment of Mrs Justice Foster in Greyson -v- Fuller [2022] EWHC 211 (QB), a copy of which is available here Greyson v Fuller – HC Judgment 3-2-22…

THE DANGER OF ISSUING UNDER PART 8 AND THEN DOING VERY LITTLE: COURT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO LIFT STAY: ACTION STRUCK OUT

THE DANGER OF ISSUING UNDER PART 8 AND THEN DOING VERY LITTLE: COURT UPHOLDS REFUSAL TO LIFT STAY: ACTION STRUCK OUT

January 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Members Content, Professional negligence,, Relief from sanctions, RTA Protocol, Sanctions

I am grateful to barrister Richard Whitehall for sending me a copy of the decision of His Honour Judge Pearce in the case of Lyle -v- Allianz Insurance plc (Liverpool CC 21st December 2017). It is a case that illustrates…

SOLICITOR'S AGENT HAS NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE AT STAGE 3 HEARING: COUNTY COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

September 21, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, RTA Protocol, Uncategorized

Who has a right of audience at a Stage 3 hearing? This issue has been considered in the county court and I am grateful to barrister Jonathan Dingle for sending me a copy of the decision of District Judge Peake…

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 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC”: SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES
  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…
  • COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED…)
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?

Top Posts

  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
  • COST BITES 288: IS IT REALLY GOING TO COST £39,967.50 TO HOLD A MEETING BETWEEN LAWYERS? (AND THERE WILL BE TEN OF THEM...)
  • ENFORCEMENT BULLETIN 2: TRANSFER OF HOUSE TO CIVIL PARTNER SET ASIDE: ARE ATTEMPTS TO AVOID PAYMENT WORTH THE CANDLE?
  • COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID - FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL'S FEES IN THE EQUATION...

Archives

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 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 National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. 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 © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.