Browning v Information Commissioner and Another [2014] EWCA Civ 1050; [2014] WLR (D) 346
‘The First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) Rules 2009 permitted the tribunal when hearing an appeal against a decision of the Information Commissioner to adopt a closed material procedure in which a party and his legal representatives were excluded from the hearing or part of it.’
WLR Daily, 30th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Ballinger and another v Mercer Ltd and another; [2014] EWCA Civ 996; [2014] WLR (D) 335
‘Where a claimant applied to introduce a new claim by amendment under CPR r 17.4, and the defendant could show a prima facie defence of limitation, the burden was on the claimant to show that the defence was not reasonably arguable. Amendments seeking to add or substitute a new cause of action would only be permitted if they arose out of the same or substantially the same facts as were already in issue on the existing claims.’
WLR Daily, 17th July 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘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
‘The Court of Appeal has hit out forcefully at unnecessarily long bundles and skeleton arguments that are anything but.’
Litigation Futures, 15th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Dominic Regan provides a guide to the post-Mitchell three-step test.’
New Law Journal, 11th July 2014
Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk
‘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.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 14th July 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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.’
OUT-LAW.com, 8th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 4th July 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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.’
Local Government Lawyer, 4th July 2014
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘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’
NearlyLegal, 6th July 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 13th June 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘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
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 24th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘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”.’
Litigation Futures, 19th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
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
‘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.’
Litigation Futures, 16th June 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
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
‘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
‘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
© Inner Temple Library 2024