Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
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 12.4K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MI5: CONTEMPT OF COURT AND THE ADMISSIBILITY OF EXTERNAL REPORTS: THEY ARE ADMISSIBLE BUT CANNOT BE USED TO PROVE ANYTHING: A POINT OF GENERAL RELEVANCE NOT JUST SECRET AGENTS…
  • COST BITES 458: “PLEASE JUDGE WE’D LIKE MORE TIME TO PAY THE COSTS”: THE RULES AND CASES CONSIDERED
  • COSTS BITES 457 — A FAILED FRAUD CLAIM, INDEMNITY COSTS AND 14 DAYS TO PAY: “I CONSIDER THAT THIS WAS COMMERCIAL CONDUCT OUT OF THE NORM” (OH, AND YOU DON’T GET MORE TIME TO PAY JUST BECAUSE YOU’RE A LARGE ORGANISATION)
  • COST BITES 456: THE CLAIMANT HAD SUCCEEDED ON ALL FOUGHT POINTS: THERE WOULD BE NO REDUCTION OF ITS COSTS: INDEMNITY COSTS IN A LANDLORD AND TENANT DISPUTE
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHY A SOLICITOR TAKES TO TAKE GREAT WHEN MAKING STATEMENTS: “AN UNIMPRESSIVE WITNESS ON WHOSE EVIDENCE I CAN PLACE LITTLE RELIANCE” (IS WHAT WE DON’T WANT TO SEE…)

Top Posts

WRITING LETTERS TO THE JUDGE AFTER A DRAFT JUDGMENT IS CIRCULATED: "THIS IS ABOUT AS FAR AWAY FROM THE CONDUCT OF SOLICITORS CONDUCTING LITIGATION AS IT IS POSSIBLE TO GET"
FORM N1 HAS BEEN SLIGHTLY AMENDED: THIS COULD BE A TRAP FOR THE UNWARY: PUTTING THE DEFENDANT'S EMAIL ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM DOES NOT CHANGE THE RULES FOR SERVICE...
PROVING THINGS 304 : FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY ESTABLISHED IN A £7 MILLION CLAIM: "THE WASTE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES CAUSED BY THE CLAIMANT'S DISHONESTY IS SCANDALOUS"
THE POWER TO GRANT AN INJUNCTION NORMALLY REQUIRES A CAUSE OF ACTION: (ONE OF) THE DIFFICULTIES OF AN ANONYMOUS LITIGANT
EXPERT WATCH 84: THE TRIAL JUDGE'S APPROACH TO THE EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS WRONG: THE APPROACH IN TUI HAD TO BE CONSIDERED: AN IMPORTANT DECISION FOR HOUSING LAWYERS...

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.