Cary v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) – WLR Daily

Cary v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis (Equality and Human Rights Commission intervening) [2014] EWCA Civ 987; [2014] WLR (D) 320

‘The Court of Appeal gave guidance as to the procedure for the appointment of assessors in discrimination cases under the Equality Act 2010.’

WLR Daily, 17th July 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Court of Appeal warns of consequences for overly long bundles and skeletons – Litigation Futures

Posted July 15th, 2014 in appeals, case management, civil procedure rules, costs, courts, news by tracey

‘The Court of Appeal has hit out forcefully at unnecessarily long bundles and skeleton arguments that are anything but.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 15th July 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Recalibrating Mitchell – New Law Journal

Posted July 14th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, sanctions by sally

‘Dominic Regan provides a guide to the post-Mitchell three-step test.’

Full story

New Law Journal, 11th July 2014

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Comments Off

Mitchell: conjoined appeals – Law Society’s Gazette

‘Practitioners will be conscious of the ridiculous practice that ensued in the lower courts following the ‘guidance’ dispensed by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 as to the operation and application of rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules – Relief from Sanction.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 14th July 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

Expert welcomes Court of Appeal’s “more nuanced approach” to granting relief from ‘Mitchell’ sanctions – OUT-LAW.com

Posted July 8th, 2014 in appeals, civil procedure rules, courts, news, proportionality, sanctions by tracey

‘Courts should be much more ready to grant relief from sanctions for failure to comply with court orders, practice directions and rules after the Court of Appeal found that the current approach had been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, an expert has said.’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 8th July 2014

Source: www.out-law.com

Comments Off

Court of Appeal takes some of the blame for “misunderstood and misapplied” Mitchell ruling – Litigation Futures

‘The Mitchell ruling has been “misunderstood and is being misapplied by some courts”, the Master of the Rolls said today in issuing more detailed guidance on how it should be used – while also recognising that some of the language used in Mitchell may have contributed to the problems.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th July 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Court of Appeal sets out 3-stage test for applications for relief from sanctions – Local Government Lawyer

‘The Court of Appeal’s ruling today [4 July] in three linked appeals relating to its its earlier judgment in Mitchell will make civil litigation less adversarial and more co-operative, the Law Society has predicted.’

Full story

Local Government Lawyer, 4th July 2014

Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk

Comments Off

Mitchell-Game, Set and Match? – NearlyLegal

‘The eagerly awaited Court of Appeal judgement in Denton & others v TH White Ltd & others was handed down on Friday. Dyson LJ provides a careful methodology on the approach to applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9, with the aim to set to rights the fall-out from the landmark decision of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd’

Full story

NearlyLegal, 6th July 2014

Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk

Comments Off

Hallam Estates v Baker : Extensions of time – time to get along? – Henderson Chambers

Posted June 26th, 2014 in agreements, appeals, civil procedure rules, delay, news, sanctions, time limits by sally

‘Lord Justice Jackson took this appeal as an opportunity to stress the importance of parties acting reasonably in agreeing to extensions of time where court hearings are not disrupted. Whilst one might have expected courts to be less approving of parties granting each other extensions of time following the 1 April 2013 reforms, the contrary appears to be the case: Jackson LJ made it quite clear that “…it was no part of my recommendations that parties should refrain from agreeing reasonable extensions of time, which neither imperil hearing dates nor otherwise disrupt the proceedings” (at [30]).

Full story (PDF)

Henderson Chambers, 27th May 2014

Source: www.hendersonchambers.co.uk

Comments Off

Property mediation in the post-Jackson and the Mitchell world – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted June 26th, 2014 in arbitration, budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news by sally

‘It has been clear for a while that both politicians and many members of the judiciary have left behind their initial scepticism and now become fervent supporters of formal alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes, mediation in particular.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2014

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Comments Off

Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd (George Walker Transport Ltd, Part 20 defendant) – WLR Daily

Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd (George Walker Transport Ltd, Part 20 defendant) [2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC); [2014] WLR (D) 270

‘A costs draftsman whose only involvement in a case consisted of preparing a costs budget and who did not give any form of legal advice or legally based representation was not a “senior legal representative” for the purposes of paragraph 6 of Practice Direction 3E on Costs Management.’

WLR Daily, 13th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

High Court grants relief despite “deliberate and non-trivial” breach – Litigation Futures

Posted June 24th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, payment into court, sanctions by sally

‘A High Court judge has granted relief from sanctions despite finding that the non-compliance was non-trivial and deliberate, and that there was some delay in lodging the application for relief – using instead powers to impose conditions on the order.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 24th June 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Will Court of Appeal triple-header lead to ‘Mitchell-lite’? – Litigation Futures

Posted June 20th, 2014 in appeals, budgets, case management, civil procedure rules, costs, news by tracey

‘A barrister who has led the way in analysing the impact of the Mitchell case has predicted that this week’s hearing of three “trivial breach” cases at the Court of Appeal could pave the way for “Mitchell-lite”.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 19th June 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Hayes v Hayes – WLR Daily

Posted June 20th, 2014 in appeals, bankruptcy, civil procedure rules, cross-examination, law reports by tracey

Hayes v Hayes: [2014] WLR (D) 267

‘Cross-examination was not appropriate on the hearing of a bankruptcy petition. The appeal court should be slow to depart from the regular practice of registrars, which was to decide such hearings without cross-examination. The insolvency court was not a suitable forum for the trying of disputes.’

WLR Daily, 12th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Precedent H “irregularity” does not render it a nullity, High Court rules – Litigation Futures

‘It would be disproportionate and unjust to strike down a Precedent H budget that was signed by a firm’s in-house costs draftsman, rather than by a “senior legal representative”, the High Court has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th June 2014

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Comments Off

Regina (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department – WLR Daily

Posted June 13th, 2014 in civil procedure rules, immigration, judicial review, law reports by sally

Regina (Grace) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] WLR (D) 249

‘The proper test to be applied by the Administrative Court under CPR r 54.12(7) when considering certifying an application for permission to proceed with judicial review as “totally without merit” was whether the claim was bound to fail. There was no requirement that the claim be shown to be abusive or vexatious.’

WLR Daily, 9th June 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

The Jackson Reforms: One year on – Falcon Chambers

‘The anniversary of the implementation of the Jackson reforms looms. Has all the fear and dread it engendered at the time been justified? Views will vary, whether because of temperament or because of preference, but in our view, for what it’s worth, the answer is “yes”. In the sphere of relief from sanctions at least, and in the kind of costs budgeting that we most often face, many of the concerns warned of in advance have come to pass. The by now well-know case of Andrew Mitchell has illustrated the draconian approach being taken by the courts to relief from sanctions, with the support of what appears to be a hand-picked Court of Appeal. The methodology of county courts in dealing with costs budgeting and CCMCs varies widely, making it difficult to predict or advise on procedural issues in the run up to trials and hearings.’

Full story (PDF)

Falcon Chambers, 25th March 2014

Source: www.falcon-chambers.com

Comments Off

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co and another v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and others – WLR Daily

Dar Al Arkan Real Estate Development Co and another v Majid Al-Sayed Bader Hashim Al Refai and others: [2014] EWCA Civ 715; [2014] WLR (D) 239

‘CPR r 81.4(3), which gave the court power to order that a company director or officer be imprisoned for a company’s contempt, applied to a director who was outside the jurisdiction.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off

Appeal court set for triple Mitchell showdown – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 4th, 2014 in appeals, budgets, case management, civil procedure rules, costs, delay, news by tracey

‘Master of the rolls Lord Dyson is to hear three consecutive appeals over two days in an effort to clarify the post-Mitchell landscape on compliance with case management rules.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd June 2014

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Comments Off

In re Lehman Brothers (International) (Europe) (in administration) (No 5) – WLR Daily

In re Lehman Brothers (International) (Europe) (in administration) (No 5); Contrarian Funds LLC v Lomas and others [2014] EWHC 1687 (Ch);  [2014] WLR (D)  233

‘Approach of court to applications for extensions of time under the Insolvency Rules 1986 in light of the reformulation of CPR r 3.9 and the test to be applied on an application for relief from sanctions.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2014

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Comments Off