Civil Litigation Brief ®

We have looked many times at issues relating to non or mis-service of the claim form.

This is a judgment about s.32 of the Limitation Act.

It is not unknown for a client to wish to change solicitors part way through a case.

When this series started in March 2025 I suspected that there would be enough material for a few posts.

For post one hundred in this series it is perhaps fitting that we look at a Privy Council decision that shows, in categorical and clear terms, that a failure to plead essential points cannot be dismissed as a technicality.

Here we have a case where the Court of Appeal upheld a decision to award pre-judgment interest on costs.

This is a case about a late application for third party disclosure.

A few recent posts have been a (wholly subtle) attempt to promote the forthcoming webinar and book "The Paying Party's Manual".

This judgment given today highlights some dangers in sending "without prejudice" bills of costs at an early stage.

It is rare for a judicial review of a judicial decision to succeed.

We are going back eight years and looking at another highly familiar theme - non-compliant witness statements.

I have today received a copy of the second edition of Andrew Hogan's book on AI for Lawyers (a review of which will be appearing soon).

Here we have a case where the claimant failed to prove its case seeking approximately US$9.6 million.” even when one of the defendants was debarred from defending.

A blog about civil procedure has to have balance.

There are some cases that have the flavour of a legal question posed by a law lecturer who is anxious to stretch their students to the limit.

The posts earlier this morning highlighted the major obstacles facing a litigant who wants to amend their pleadings at a very late stage.

We have already look at this case in relation to the claimant's application for relief from sanctions.

This is a case we are looking at in two parts.

HM Courts and Tribunal Service have prepared an updated list of forms to be used in the Business and Property Courts.

The post earlier this morning where the Upper Tribunal considered the problems with very authentic looking documents being produced by Artificial Intelligence is illustrative of a very real problem for civil practitioners.

Much of the discussion in relation to Artificial Intelligence to date has related to its ability to "hallucinate" false cases.

What steps should be taken if a witness has identified an error in their witness statement?

We have recently been looking at a few cases that have made the headlines.

It is wise for a party that is likely to be on the losing side of a case to make a Part 36 offer.

This post is (obviously) the mirror image to the earlier post on applying to rely on expert evidence.

There are cases where a party has to prove dishonesty.

A post yesterday dealt with an unsuccessful application to rely on expert evidence.

There are certain cases that litigators should keep in their cabinets to show to clients who are overkeen to litigate.

We are looking at a case where the tribunal considered whether a party should be granted permission to rely on expert evidence.

The rules allow the parties to disclose the existence of a Part 36 offer after a split trial.

The post last Friday about the inadequate drafting of a defence was the 19th this year on the way in which defences are pleaded.

I first wrote about the "true meaning" of entries into directories eight years ago.

This is the second post on experts today.

The post earlier this morning identifying a case, from 2015, where a claimant failed to prove any damages, highlighted the need for a recap on this topic.

Here we look at an issue that has given rise to numerous posts on this site over the years - a party fails to prove an essential element of their case.

We are in unusual territory here in looking at a Criminal Appeal Case from Northern Ireland.

This is an important decision for those who represent respondents to committal proceedings.

Today is the first day that we don't have a Chancery Division.

Here is a classic case of a failure to draft a Defence properly.

Issues relating to the use of AI continue to "interest" the legal profession.

The post earlier this morning set out the major elements of the new Practice Direction on the Online Procedure Rules for Possession Proceedings.

The Practice Direction: Online Procedure Rules for Possession Proceedings, updated on 29 September 2026 (and came into force at 12.00 that very day), introduces a procedural framework for specified County Court possession claims.

Yesterday we looked at an issue in the news to review questions of witness credibility.

This webinar provides a practical and detailed examination of claims for care and assistance in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation.

Here we look at specific issues as to the payment of costs arising from cryptocurrency, Bitcoin in particular.

The issue of how far a court can take witness statements at face value at an interlocutory hearing is always an interesting one.

There is a lot of controversy at present in relation to recollections about telephone conversations that took place three decades ago.

We are likely to see much litigation, and quite a few procedural wrangles, arising from Bitcoin and similar "currencies".

The latest (the 5th) edition of the Guide to Fatal Accidents is now available to pre-order.

The Supreme Court announced, on the 21st September 2026, that the Court's Practice Directions had been amended on the 18th September 2026.