Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Second set of proceedings
SECOND ACTION NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT RESOURCES DOES NOT "TRUMP THE OVERRIDING NEED TO DO JUSTICE"

SECOND ACTION NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT RESOURCES DOES NOT “TRUMP THE OVERRIDING NEED TO DO JUSTICE”

December 10, 2017 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Second set of proceedings

In Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 3206 (QB) Mr Justice Morris upheld a finding that a second claim brought by the claimant was not an abuse of process.  “…even post-Jackson, ultimately, the importance of the efficient…

TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS: A SECOND ACTION IS NOT ALWAYS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS & A BANKRUPT CANNOT BRING PROCEEDINGS

September 28, 2016 · by gexall · in Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Bowles in Khan -v- Khan & Ambala Foods Limited [2015] EWHC 2625 (Ch) contains a reminder of two important procedural points. KEY POINTS (1) The issue of a second set of proceedings is potentially an abuse…

SECOND ACTION AGAINST A DIFFERENT DEFENDANT STRUCK OUT FOR ABUSE OF PROCESS: ALCOCK -v- PARK BUSINESS CENTRES LIMITED

December 4, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

Should a second action, issued because the first was struck out for some reason, be struck out?  I am grateful to Charles Bagot of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me a copy of the transcript of a decision by District Judge…

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

  • MAZUR MATTERS 64: THE COURT REJECTS WOULD BE APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT THAT A CLAIMANT’S REPRESENTATIVE HAD NO RIGHT OF AUDIENCE
  • THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 86: DEFENDANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO AMEND DEFENCE ON THE MORNING OF TRIAL
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: THE DEFENDANT IS NOT THE CLAIMANT’S KEEPER: ANOTHER CASE WHERE (MIS) SERVICE OF THE CLAIM FORM LED TO GRIEF
  • CALCULATORS FOR LAWYERS: A CALCULATOR “SUITE” BUILT BY A WORKING BARRISTER: 14 DAYS FREE TRIAL
  • COST BITES 411: NON-PARTY COSTS ORDER MADE AGAINST CLAIMANT’S DIRECTOR : HE WHO EXPECTS TO BENEFIT RUNS A RISK OF PAYING THE COSTS…

Top Posts

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.