Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Statement of Case
PARTS OF A DEFENCE WERE STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT ATTEMPT TO REARGUE FACTUAL ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY A TRIBUNAL

PARTS OF A DEFENCE WERE STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE DEFENDANT COULD NOT ATTEMPT TO REARGUE FACTUAL ISSUES THAT HAD BEEN DETERMINED BY A TRIBUNAL

June 11, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

Here we have a case where parts of a defence were struck out, in relation to two of the claimants, because of issue estoppel. The defence was trying to re-argue factual issues which had already been determined by a tribunal. …

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 61: CLAIM FOR LIBEL WAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED: "MUCH OF THIS ESSENTIAL DETAIL IS MISSING"

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 61: CLAIM FOR LIBEL WAS NOT PROPERLY PLEADED: “MUCH OF THIS ESSENTIAL DETAIL IS MISSING”

March 23, 2026 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out, Summary judgment

As we shall see there are very strict and precise requirements for pleading libel.  There are numerous cases where the claimant has failed to get past the preliminary stages because of inadequate pleadings. We look at such a case here….

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

THERE IS NO OBLIGATION ON A CLAIMANT TO FILE A REPLY: THE BURDEN OF PROOF REMAINS WITH THE DEFENDANT

August 4, 2022 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Pistachios In the Park Ltd & Anor v Sharn Panesar Ltd [2022] EWHC 2088 (QB) Mr Justice Freedman pointed out that the appellant’s argument in relation to pleading and burden of proof ran contrary to the rules.  There is…

A LOT ABOUT LITIGATION CONDUCT HERE: SIGNATURE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: POOR BUNDLES: POOR WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE TOTAL LACK OF WISDOM IN SENDING MATERIAL DIRECTLY TO THE JUDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRIAL...

A LOT ABOUT LITIGATION CONDUCT HERE: SIGNATURE OF THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: POOR BUNDLES: POOR WITNESS STATEMENTS AND THE TOTAL LACK OF WISDOM IN SENDING MATERIAL DIRECTLY TO THE JUDGE IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRIAL…

April 30, 2021 · by gexall · in Bundles, Conduct, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in Beattie Passive Norse Ltd & Anor v Canham Consulting Ltd [2021] EWHC 1116 (TCC) demonstrate some “unusual” conduct in litigation. Not least the claimant’s solicitors wrote to the judge, in the middle of…

GENERAL RESPONSE IN A REPLY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN ADMISSION: HIGH COURT DECISION

GENERAL RESPONSE IN A REPLY DOES NOT AMOUNT TO AN ADMISSION: HIGH COURT DECISION

April 6, 2021 · by gexall · in Admissions, Amendment, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Berkeley Square Holdings Ltd & Ors v Lancer Property Assets Management Ltd & Ors (Claimant amendment application) (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 750 (Ch) Mr Robin Vos (sitting as a judge of the Chancery Division) rejected an argument that a…

APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: "A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE'S FUNCTION)

APPEAL ALLOWED WHERE THE TRIAL JUDGE DEPARTED FROM THE PLEADED CASE: “A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE JUDGE’S FUNCTION)

March 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Appeals, Members Content, Statements of Case

The judgment of the Court of Appeal today in Satyam Enterprises Ltd v Burton & Anor [2021] EWCA Civ 287 provides another example of the importance of statements of case. The Court allowed an appeal where the trial judge had…

ATTEMPTING TO RELY ON MATTERS WHERE PERMISSION TO AMEND HAD BEEN REFUSED: A BRIDGE TOO FAR

April 12, 2018 · by gexall · in Amendment, Members Content, Statements of Case

In Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd v Sarens (UK) Ltd [2018] EWHC 751 (TCC) the court rejected an attempt by a party to argue a case which had not been pleaded.   The defendant had been refused permission to amend its defence and counterclaim…

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

  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: WHEN A LITIGATOR MAKES A STATEMENT ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENT: A USEFUL CHECKLIST ON THE SOURCE OF INFORMATION AND BELIEF
  • EXPERT WATCH 56: A SECTION OF A JUDGMENT THAT SPECIFICALLY CRITICISES A MEDICAL EXPERT: “I WAS STRUCK BY THE ABSENCE OF A RIGOROUS AND CAREFUL MULTIDISCPLINARY APPROACH TO THIS ISSUES IN THIS CASE”
  • EXPERT WATCH 55: WAS THIS WAR? (OR CAUSED BY WAR): TRIAL JUDGE CONSIDERS THE EVIDENCE OF TWO EXPERTS ON GEOPOLITICS, BUT FINDS ONE IS PARTISAN
  • PERSONAL INJURY MATTERS 17 (1): LIABILITY CATCHUP (1): PUB OPERATOR IS NOT VICARIOUSLY LIABLE FOR DOORMEN’S ACTS: A CONCLUSION REACHED “WITH REGRET”
  • COST BITES 411: HOW DOES A COURT DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF AN INTERIM PAYMENT AS TO COSTS WHEN THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN BUDGETED? SHOULD A PAYMENT BE ORDERED AT ALL?

Top Posts

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: AS STRONGLY WORDED A REFUSAL AS I HAVE SEEN: THE CONCEPT "DOES NOT EMBODY A PRINCIPLE OF "BREACH NOW REPENT LATER"
A SOLICITOR SHOULD JUST NOT BE SAYING THIS IS IN A WITNESS STATEMENT: IT "STRAYED WELL BEYOND WHAT SHE COULD LEGALLY GIVE EVIDENCE ABOUT FROM HER OWN KNOWLEDGE INCLUDED HEARSAY FROM AN UNNAMED SOURCE AND INCLUDED STATEMENTS OF OPINION WHICH SHE DID NOT HAVE THE EXPERTISE TO GIVE..."
THE ONLINE PROCEDURE (RULES AND PRACTICE DIRECTIONS) RULES 2026 COME INTO FORCE ON THE 7th SEPTEMBER: HERE IS A SUMMARY (AND THE RULES THEMSLVES)
ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND LITIGATION: AN UPDATE ON CONSULTATION FINDINGS FROM THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL
WHERE THINGS WENT WRONG IN LITIGATION (AND STOPPING IT HAPPENING TO YOU) 2: ADVISING A CLIENT THAT THEY ARE NOT LIABLE FOR COSTS BECAUSE PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED

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.