Civil Litigation Brief ®
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Webinars
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers
Browse: Home » Venue
ISSUING CLAIMS IN THE TCC: LOCAL IS QUICKER (AND PROBABLY MANDATORY IN ANY EVENT)

ISSUING CLAIMS IN THE TCC: LOCAL IS QUICKER (AND PROBABLY MANDATORY IN ANY EVENT)

October 21, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

We are returning to the judgment of HHJ Stephen Davies in Workman Properties Ltd v Adi Building And Refurbishment Ltd [2024] EWHC 2627 (TCC). This time to look at the judge’s concluding observations as to venue. The failure to issue in…

MANCHESTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN NORFOLK: THE CASE GOES SOUTH...

MANCHESTER IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE VENUE FOR SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED IN NORFOLK: THE CASE GOES SOUTH…

April 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In Bartosik, R (On the Application Of) v Office of the Police & Crime Commissioner for Norfolk [2024] EWHC 932 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham held that the Administrative Court in Manchester is not the appropriate venue for a dispute over…

ISSUING HIGH VALUE PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS: LOCAL IS USUALLY BEST: HIGH COURT DECISION

ISSUING HIGH VALUE PERSONAL INJURY AND CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS: LOCAL IS USUALLY BEST: HIGH COURT DECISION

August 7, 2023 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Members Content

I am grateful to all those readers who brought my attention to the judgment of Mr Justice Cotter in  Jennings v Otis Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 2039 (KB), in particular to the section on the wisdom of issuing in local…

ANOTHER CASE WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS WERE ISSUED IN LONDON BUT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEEDS

ANOTHER CASE WHERE JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS WERE ISSUED IN LONDON BUT IT WAS TRANSFERRED TO LEEDS

May 30, 2022 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Fajr Ellis, R (On the Application Of) v Student Loans Company [2022] EWHC 1263 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham held that judicial review proceedings, issued in London, should be transferred to the administrative court in Leeds.   “In my judgment…

JUDICIAL REVIEW PROCEEDINGS SENT TO THE NORTH: LOCAL COURTS ARE BEST…

January 27, 2022 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content

In  Fortt, R (On the Application Of) v Financial Services Compensation Scheme Ltd [2022] EWHC 152 (Admin) Mr Justice Fordham ordered that judicial review proceedings be sent to Manchester rather than heard in London.  The judgment emphasises the importance of…

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

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.