Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Striking out » Page 4
STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT "TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES"

STRIKING OUT A DEFENCE: FONT SIZE, LINE SPACING AND A MAXIMUM PAGE LENGTH ORDERED: PLEADINGS THAT “TEND TO OBFUSCATE RATHER THAN CLARIFY THE ISSUES”

March 23, 2018 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

In Brown & Anor (t/a Maple Hayes Hall School) v AB [2018] EWHC 623 (QB) Mr Edward Pepperall QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) struck out a defence that was . In giving the defendant another chance he made…

THE PROBLEM IN OBTAINING AN ORDER YOU HAVEN'T ASKED FOR:AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 3.4 WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION UNDER PART 24

THE PROBLEM IN OBTAINING AN ORDER YOU HAVEN’T ASKED FOR:AN APPLICATION UNDER CPR 3.4 WILL NOT BE TREATED AS AN APPLICATION UNDER PART 24

January 11, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment

The judgment of Chief Master Marsh in Saeed & Anor v Ibrahim & Ors [2018] EWHC 3 (Ch) contains several important observations in relation to making applications.  The Master refused to treat an application, ostensibly made under CPR 3.4, as an…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL - THE FULL JUDGMENT

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: APPEAL AGAINST STRIKING OUT ALLOWED: CROSS -v- BLACK BULL – THE FULL JUDGMENT

January 7, 2018 · by gexall · in Abuse of Process, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content

I reported the judgment in Cross-v- Black Bull (Doncaster) Limited* (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2017) at the end of last year.  The full judgment is now available and is attached here 072 – Cross v Black Bull – Judgment A SUMMARY The…

STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TRIAL FEE: THIS IS ALWAYS A POINT TO WATCH

STRIKING OUT THE CLAIM FOR NON-PAYMENT OF TRIAL FEE: THIS IS ALWAYS A POINT TO WATCH

October 13, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Rule Changes, Sanctions, Striking out

In April this year the rules were amended to introduce a concept of “automatic striking out”.  Put simply if a claimant does not pay the court fee by the relevant date. I have seen occasions where this has had effect….

UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS

UNDOUBTED FLAWS IN THE WAY WITNESS STATEMENTS WERE DRAFTED: LEADS TO A WASTE OF TIME AND COSTS

July 22, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

There are many reasons litigators should read the judgment of Lady Justice Thirwall in Marsh -v- Ministry of Justice [2017] EWHC 1040 (QB,  Here I want to concentrate upon the witness statements, in particular the defendant’s witness statements. It is another…

WISEMAN -V- MARSTON: COURT FEES CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

WISEMAN -V- MARSTON: COURT FEES CASE: TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

June 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out

The transcript of the judgment in the Wiseman -v- Marston case is now available. I have included it as an attachment to the previous posts on the case. The links are also available here. THE JUDGMENT AND COURT OF APPEAL…

WISEMAN -V- MARSTON: THE UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES:  DEFENDANT'S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

WISEMAN -V- MARSTON: THE UNDERPAYMENT OF COURT FEES: DEFENDANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL REFUSED

May 31, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out

In December last year I reported on the decision in Wiseman -v- Marston’s PLC (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2016). His Honour Judge Robinson allowed the claimant’s appeal in a case relating to payment of court fees. The defendant applied for…

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM MUST BE IN A FORM THAT THE DEFENDANT CAN RESPOND TO: PLEADINGS STRUCK OUT ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM WAS NOT

PARTICULARS OF CLAIM MUST BE IN A FORM THAT THE DEFENDANT CAN RESPOND TO: PLEADINGS STRUCK OUT ALTHOUGH THE CLAIM WAS NOT

May 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out

In Kaplan -v- Super PCS LLP [2017] EWHC 1165 (Ch) Mrs Justice Rose struck out the particulars of claim because it was impossible for the defendants to respond to it. It is an object lesson that, even in a complex…

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES WHEN ITS DEFENCE IS STRUCK OUT? NOTHING

WHAT CAN A DEFENDANT ARGUE ABOUT DAMAGES WHEN ITS DEFENCE IS STRUCK OUT? NOTHING

May 18, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Disclosure, Members Content, Striking out

What is the position of a defendant whose action has been struck out?  This was the question considered by Mr Justice Soole in Michael -v- Phillips [2017] EWHC 1984 (QB). The short answer is the defendant cannot dispute any aspect…

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKEN OUT: A FATAL ERROR FROM THE OUTSET

ISSUING PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION ARE TAKEN OUT: A FATAL ERROR FROM THE OUTSET

April 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Fatal Accidents, Members Content, Striking out

In Qunintana -v- Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust 28/03/2017 Master Cook upheld the established principle that an action cannot be brought by administrators of an estate before the letters of administration are taken out.  Proceedings cannot later be amended…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHO APPEARED BY COUNSEL: A "SURPRISING STATE OF AFFAIRS" PUT RIGHT

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS GRANTED TO DEFENDANT WHO APPEARED BY COUNSEL: A “SURPRISING STATE OF AFFAIRS” PUT RIGHT

April 11, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There may well be a term for the process by which a number of decisions, which appeared sensible at the time they were made, lead to a ridiculous result. This principle may well apply to what happened in Falmouth House…

A WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE IS IN PURDAH: THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER

A WITNESS IN THE COURSE OF GIVING EVIDENCE IS IN PURDAH: THE ROLE OF THE LAWYER

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Members Content, Striking out, Witness statements

The Employment Tribunal decision in Chidzoy -v- BBC (available here) contains an important lesson to lawyers and litigants alike.  A witness in the course of giving evidence is in “purdah” – in that they should not discuss the case with…

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

HIGH COURT WRITES AN OPEN LETTER TO LITIGANTS IN PERSON: STRIKING OUT CAN BE A BENEFIT NOT A BURDEN

March 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

There are aspects of the judgment of Mr Justice Walker in Chambers -v- Rooney [2017] EWHC 285 (QB) that amount to an open letter from the High Court to litigants in person. Some of the observations are aimed at everyone…

RASTIN RESURRECTED: DO THE NEW RULES RE-INTRODUCE AUTOMATIC STRIKING OUT?

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out

There have been comments on Twitter, and now in the Gazette, that “automatic striking out” is being introduced by the rules coming into force on the 6th April 2017.  This is true, however it is important that the rules are…

ADVERSE DECISION IN ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS DID NOT RENDER AN ACTION AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: COURT OF APPEAL REVERSED STRIKING OUT DECISION

January 14, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out

 In Michael Wilson & Partners -v- Sinclair [2017] EWCA Civ 3 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to strike out the claimant’s case.  The fact that there had been earlier arbitration proceedings did not, in this case,  render a second…

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER CASE

January 6, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Limitation, Members Content, Sanctions, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

There is a brief report on  Browne Jacobson Insurance Law about a case that struck out because of a failure to pay the correct fees. THE REPORT The report is brief and does not give the date of the judgment…

DELAY AND NON-COMPLIANCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT: A "GAME CHANGER"

January 4, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Damages, Extensions of time, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Uncategorized

The judgment of Master Matthew in Phelps -v- Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) emphasises the dangers of delay and non compliance. “…I will observe that the Court ethos has changed enormously since the days of Lord Denning and the two…

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE, AMENDMENT & STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER DECISION

December 23, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

There have been a number of cases in relation to the consequences for a claimant when the correct court fee has not been paid upon issue.  This issue was considered by His Honour Judge Robinson this week in an appeal…

THE DEAD CAN'T SUE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

November 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Group Litigation Orders, Members Content, Parties to actions, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Kimathi & Ors -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart reviewed the principles in relation to bringing an action on behalf of a deceased party.  It is an important reminder of some very…

PROVING THINGS 32: DAMAGES CLAIM STRUCK OUT AS UNSUSTAINABLE; APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED.

September 29, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment, Uncategorized, Witness statements

In Guney -v- Kingsley Napley [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan struck out part of the claimant’s claim for damages and refused the claimant permission to amend to plead new heads of damage. It could serve as an object…

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…

YOU ARE PAYING YOUR WITNESSES BY RESULTS: WE WANT TO STRIKE YOU OUT

September 8, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized, Witness statements

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in EnergySolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) is a highly technical analysis of procurement legislation in an action that had already had a somewhat tortuous procedural history.  However I…

"SECOND" ACTION FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

July 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Clinical Negligence, Members Content, Striking out, Summary judgment, Uncategorized

In the judgment today in Wright -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1834 (QB) Mr Justice Edis refused the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on the grounds that the claimant had settled an…

PAYING THE "CORRECT" COURT FEE AND AMENDMENT: AN IMPORTANT CASE REVIEWING THE PRINCIPLES

July 26, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Court fees, Limitation, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

This blog has looked several times* at the cases and principles that have followed the decision in Lewis -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch).   Applications around allegations of failure to pay the correct court fee have  become a new battleground…

IF YOU ARE GOING TO DRAFT PLEADINGS THEN DO IT PROPERLY: A REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY

July 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Case Management, Members Content, Statements of Case, Uncategorized

A post last month highlighted a case where a defendant obtained judgment in default on a counterclaim. The judge refused to set aside the judgment and, in effect, the claimant’s entire claim failed. There is a clear and obvious need…

STRIKING OUT A PLEADING WHEN IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE RULES

June 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Jones -v- Longley [2016] EWHC 1309 (Ch) Master Matthews considered the criteria for striking out a pleading, in this case a counterclaim.  There are important observations on the needs for pleadings to comply with the rules; on the fact…

STATEMENTS OF CASE & THE STATEMENT OF TRUTH: CAN A PARTY ARGUE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS?

May 25, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Statements of Truth, Uncategorized

There are some interesting observations by Mr Justice Leggatt in ED&F Sugar ltd -v- T&L Sugar Ltd [2016] EWHC 272 (Comm). KEY POINTS A statement of truth which supported particulars of claim was a statement of fact. An assertion in…

FAILURE TO PAY THE CORRECT COURT FEE DOES NOT LEAD TO STRIKING OUT OF AN ACTION

May 17, 2016 · by gexall · in Amendment, Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

The decision in  Lewis -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch)  has led to considerable interest (and it has to be said) some hyperbole and opportunistic applications. The case is often misunderstood. In Bhatti -v- Ashghar [2016] EWHC 1049 (QB)…

THE DANGERS OF NOT PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE: CASES BARRED BY LIMITATION BECAUSE WRONG COURT FEE WAS PAID

January 6, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Limitation, Members Content, Uncategorized

In Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch) Mr John Male QC   summary judgment was given for the defendants on the grounds that a deliberate decision to pay an incorrect court fee on issue meant…

THE GAME MUST BE WORTH THE CANDLE: ACTION STOPPED IN ITS TRACKS BECAUSE THE CLAIMANT HAD NOTHING TO GAIN

December 21, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

In IG Index Ltd -v- Cloete [2015] EWHC 3698 (QB) HHJ Richard Parkes QC (sitting as a judge of the High Court) struck out an action on the grounds that the claimant had nothing to gain. KEY POINTS The court…

STRIKING OUT FOR DELAY: SOLLAND UPHELD ON APPEAL

November 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

We have looked before at the decision of Master Bowles in Solland International Ltd -v- Clifford Harris & Co [2015] EWHC 2018 (Ch) where the claimant’s action was struck out because of their failure to progress the action for 31…

THE ALDI PRINCIPLE AND SECOND ACTIONS: A STING IN THE TAIL

November 15, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Uncategorized

In Chamonix Private Equity LLP -v- Caledonia Investments plc [2015] EWHC 3290 (Comm) Mr Justice Knowles noted that, in the absence of prior notification, it was going to be difficult for a claimant to bring a second action against different…

ISSUING WITHOUT AUTHORITY: THE DANGERS OF SOLICITORS SIGNING STATEMENTS OF TRUTH: ACTION STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

October 27, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Statements of Case, Striking out, Uncategorized

This blog has looked, several times, at the dangers of solicitors signing documents which contain a statement of truth. The risks are clearly set out in the decision of Mrs Justice Rose today in Bao Xiang International Garment Centre -v-…

STRIKING OUT AT TRIAL BECAUSE THE CASE WAS A MESS: A WARNING FOR THOSE WHO WANT LIFE WITHOUT LAWYERS

October 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Bundles, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out, Uncategorized

On a day when the Lord Chief Justice has stated that the legal system must adapt to life without lawyers. It is interesting to read this report of the problems caused by litigants in person. It has kindly been provided…

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO GIVE DISCLOSURE IN RELATION TO LATER ACCIDENT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

October 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Striking out, Uncategorized

In Ali -v- CIS General Insurance 2015 WL 5037781 His Honour Judge Cryan upheld a decision striking out a claim for failure to comply with disclosure. “The failure to comply with the order for disclosure was a serious failure to…

QOCS, STRIKING OUT AND THE LIABILITY TO PAY IN FULL: A COUNTY COURT DECISION

August 18, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Colm Nugent of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me a copy of the judgment in Wall -v- British Canoe Union. A decision of HH Judge Lopez in Birmingham County Court on the 30th July 2015.  The judgment…

SETTING ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE IN A QOCS CASE: TWO INTERESTING DECISIONS

July 20, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, QOCS

I am grateful to Rebecca Jones of Hardwicke Chambers for sending me details of an important decision in relation to setting aside a notice of discontinuance served by a claimant in a costs case. The note of the judgment below…

"FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY" A ROUND UP OF CASES & COMMENTARY

May 10, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Damages, Members Content, Personal Injury, Risks of litigation, Useful links

The earlier post on the procedural aspects of “fundamental” dishonesty led to the most visitors to the blog in a weekend ever.  Here we look at posts, articles, comments and cases in relation to the concept of fundamental dishonesty. REPORTED…

"FUNDAMENTAL DISHONESTY" AND STRIKING OUT IN PERSONAL INJURY CASES: TEN KEY PROCEDURAL POINTS

May 9, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content

The rule as to “fundamental” dishonesty has attracted a lot of attraction (and a lot of heated debate). However there has been very little examination of the details of the Act and the consequent procedural implications.  There are 10 key…

YET MORE ON BUNDLES : BREACH OF ORDER MADE ON "MITCHELL" GROUNDS UPHELD ON "DENTON" GROUNDS

May 1, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Bundles, Civil evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

The case of Patel -v- Mussa [2015] EWCA Civ 434 is, in essence, another sorry story about bundles.  It is also an example of the Court of Appeal upholding a case management decision made by a judge who applied “Mitchell”…

FAILURE TO GIVE ADEQUATE REPLIES TO PART 18 QUESTIONS LEADS TO ACTION BEING STRUCK OUT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

April 23, 2015 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Statements of Case

In his judgment today in Griffith -v- Gourgey [2015] EWHC 1080 (Ch) Mr Justice Simon addressed the issue of whether an action stands struck out if a party gives inadequate replies to Part 18 questions after a peremptory order has…

INADEQUATE WITNESS STATEMENTS LEAD TO CASE BEING STRUCK OUT AT TRIAL

February 24, 2015 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil evidence, Damages, Disclosure, Members Content, Statements of Case, Witness statements

We have looked at the case of  Devon & Cornwall Autistic Community Trust -v- Cornwall Council before.  In the first report Mr Justice Green refused an application to adjourn a trial date but gave permission to serve witness evidence late….

SHOULD A SECOND ACTION BE STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS? AN ISSUE COMING TO THE COURT OF APPEAL SOON

February 17, 2015 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Second set of proceedings, Striking out

There is an important note in the news section of Hardwicke Chambers website.  The Court of Appeal has granted permission to appeal in a case where the judge refused to strike out a second action issued after a first action…

CASE STRUCK OUT AFTER JUDGMENT BECAUSE REPEATED FAILURES TO COMPLY AMOUNTED TO AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

December 15, 2014 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Risks of litigation, Striking out

In Zaman -v- Paradise UK Ltd (QBD) 11/12/2014* Judge Seymour QC upheld a decision of the Master to strike out a personal injury action on the grounds of abuse of process where liability had been admitted.  This is an important…

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…

SOLICITOR'S BILL OF COSTS STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIM WAS EXAGGERATED AND (IN PART) FALSE

November 11, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Striking out

In Alpha Rocks Solicitors -v- Alade [2014] EWHC 3606 (Ch) Kevin Prosser Q.C., sitting as a judge of the High Court, struck out part of the solicitor’s bill as an abuse of process. The case makes instructive reading.  It involved…

CASE STRUCK OUT BECAUSE DELAY WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: WEARN -v- HNH CONSIDERED

October 30, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Striking out

In Wearn -v- HNH International Holdings Ltd [2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch) Mr Justice Barling struck out a claim for delay, holding that the claimant’s delay amounted to an abuse of process. There are also a few interesting observations about the…

SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND STRIKING OUT: COMPLEX ISSUES CANNOT BE DECIDED SUMMARILY

October 28, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Striking out

The decision of Peter Smith J in Emerald Supplies Ltd -v- British Airways PLC [2014] EWHC 3514 (Ch) highlights the difficulties in seeking summary determinations or striking out of cases and issues in complex cases. The judge declined to grant…

SECOND ACTION AFTER SETTLEMENT NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: SECTION 33 APPLICATION ALLOWED: DOWDALL CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

August 13, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Limitation, Members Content, Second set of proceedings

The case of Dowdall -v- William Kenyon & Sons Ltd [2014] EWHC 2822 (QB) decided yesterday contains some important observations in relation to allegations of abuse of process; estoppel and section 33. THE FACTS Mr Dowdall has pleural mesotheliomia. In 2003…

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 … 3 4

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

  • THE APIL DAMAGES SERIES 2026: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO ASSESSING PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES: WEBINARS STARTING ON THE 23rd JULY 2026
  • CAN THE WAY IN WHICH A CLAIMANT HAS CONDUCTED A CASE MEAN THAT IT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUMMARY JUDGMENT: “CLEAN HANDS” AND OTHER EQUITABLE MAXIMS CONSIDERED
  • BACK TO BASICS MONDAY: EXPERT WITNESSES HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE SAME MATERIAL: THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LEVEL PLAYING FIELD
  • EXPERT WATCH 59: THE JUDGE IS CONCERNED THAT THE EXPERTS’ SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WERE NOT FULLY DISCLOSED: THIS HAS CONSEQUENCES…
  • MAZUR MATTERS 65 (YES THEY ARE STILL CROPPING UP…): WAS A COMPANY SUING FOR A DEBT IT HAD PURCHASED BREACHING THE LEGAL SERVICES ACT?

Top Posts

"I HAD NEVER COME ACROSS A CASE IN WHICH SO LITTLE RESPECT HAD BEEN PAID TO THE COURT": INACCURATE TIME ESTIMATES; OVER-LENGTHY SKELETONS; ENORMOUS BUNDLES (OH AND AN ATTITUDE OF "WE'LL COME INTO COURT WHEN WE WANT TO"...): I CAN'T RECALL JUDICIAL CRITICISM MUCH STRONGER THAN THIS,
WE HAD SUCH A HOPELESS CASE WE SHOULDN'T PAY ALL THE COSTS BECAUSE YOU SHOULD HAVE APPLIED TO STRIKE US OUT: ARGUMENTS WITH AN "AIR OF UNREALITY" ABOUT THEM
CAN THE COURT REFUSE TO ISSUE A CLAIM FORM? CAN THE STAFF LAWFULLY REFER THE ISSUE TO THE JUDGE? AN UNUSUAL APPLICATION FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW
WAS A SOLICITOR'S CAP ON LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE TO £3 MILLION "REASONABLE": COULD IT SURVIVE THE UNFAIR CONTRACT TERMS ACT REQUIREMENTS?
COST BITES 414 : A WITHDRAWN PART 36 OFFER STILL HAD AN IMPACT ON THE AWARD OF COSTS: CLAIMANTS COULD NOT RECOVER COSTS AFTER DATE OF OFFER

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.