header-logo header-logo

20 February 2026
Issue: 8150 / Categories: Legal News , Civil way , Procedure & practice , CPR , Costs , Nuisance
printer mail-detail

NLJ this week: Civil practice with claws & caution

From cat fouling to Part 36 brinkmanship, the latest 'Civil way' round-up is a reminder that procedural skirmishes can have sharp teeth. NLJ columnist Stephen Gold ranges across recent decisions with his customary wit

In Smithstone v Tranmoor Primary School, the Court of Appeal confirmed that a liability-only Part 36 offer can trigger CPR 36.17 consequences, overruling contrary dicta in Mundy—though in that case the claimant still ended up with ‘fixed costs only’.

Elsewhere, Judge Tayler in Pal v Accenture warned that ‘generalised findings on credibility are rarely a useful tool’, a line worth banking for closing submissions.

There is guidance on extracting funds from the Court Funds Office, a tweak to form N215’s statement of truth, and a caution that CPR 32.7 cross-examination on interlocutory evidence, while possible, may test judicial patience. Even ‘cat poo’ can raise public law error if councils ask the wrong question.

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll