Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » submissions
THERE ARE GOOD REASONS NOT TO CALL AN OPPONENT'S 'RIDICULOUS' : PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, CORRECT

THERE ARE GOOD REASONS NOT TO CALL AN OPPONENT’S ‘RIDICULOUS’ : PARTICULARLY IF THEY ARE, IN FACT, CORRECT

September 14, 2018 · by gexall · in Conduct, Members Content, Written advocacy

This blog has looked at issues relating to written submissions many times. Included in this has been the need to avoid hyperbole, which often backfires.  A good example, borrowed from the United States, is the judgment in Bennett -v- Start…

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 12.3K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • WHOSE EXPERT EVIDENCE IS GOING TO BE ACCEPTED AT TRIAL? (CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE): WEBINAR 10th JUNE 2026
  • COST BITES 397: THE PARTIES THAT SPENT £500,000 IN A DISPUTE THAT WAS WORTH £5,000: THE JUDGE FOUND GOOD REASON TO DEPART FROM THE DEFENDANT’S COSTS BUDGET (A CASE I WOULD ENCOURAGE EVERY LITIGATOR TO READ)
  • CAN YOU CONVERT PART 7 PROCEEDINGS TO PART 8 PROCEEDINGS: THIS REMAINS AN OPEN QUESTION
  • COST BITES 396 : THE CLAIMANT’S CONDUCT WAS SUCH IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO AWARD INDEMNITY COSTS IN THE NATIONAL LOTTERY CASE; IT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE TO REDUCE THE SUCCESSFUL DEFENDANTS’ COSTS
  • COST BITES 395: A RETAINER WAS NOT A CONTENTIOUS BUSINESS AGREEMENT BECAUSE THE TERMS IN RELATION TO HOURLY RATES RENDERED IT TOO UNCERTAIN (COURT OF APPEAL DECISION YESTERDAY)

Top Posts

  • A FIRM OF SOLICITORS ISSUED PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT AUTHORITY TO DO SO: ORDERED TO PAY £900,000 ON ACCOUNT OF COSTS: SOME EXPENSIVE LESSONS HERE...
  • COST BITES 386: THREATS TO REPORT THE DEFENDANTS' SOLICITORS TO THE SRA WAS ONE OF THE REASONS THE CLAIMANT HAD TO PAY COSTS ON AN INDEMNITY BASIS: WEAPONISERS BEWARE
  • ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AND THE CITATION OF MISLEADING AUTHORITIES: ANOTHER WEEK, ANOTHER CASE: IF YOUR NAME IS ON THE DOCUMENT YOU "OWN" IT...
  • THROWBACK FRIDAY: LAWYERS FAILURE TO PROVIDE OVERSIGHT OF EXPERTS LEADS TO EXCLUSION OF THEIR EVIDENCE: EXPERT EVIDENCE IS “NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT” (MAY 2021)
  • COST BITES 385: THE COURTS SHOULD BE WARY OF DECIDING PRELIMINARY APPLICATIONS AND ISSUES ON A PROVISIONAL ASSESSMENT: THIS COULD UNDERMINE THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE REGIME

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.