‘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
‘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.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 3rd June 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘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
JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov and others (No 11) [2014] EWCA Civ 602; [2014] WLR (D) 221
‘Where non-parties resident outside the jurisdiction applied for removal of an asset from the scope of freezing and associated orders, the court had jurisdiction to order the trial of an issue as to whether they owned the asset as claimed, but not as to whether they had colluded in breach of the orders, without steps being taken to establish extra-territorial jurisdiction in reliance on paragraph 3.1 of CPR Practice Direction 6B.’
WLR Daily, 14th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Regular readers of this blog (when it is accessible) will know that we are a housing law blog. However, housing law (for the most part) is covered by the overarching umbrella of civil law and we do therefore occasionally cover the odd important non-housing civil law development. It is for that reason that we have been following with interest (as is every single civil lawyer in England and Wales) the “fall-out” from the Jackson reforms.’
NearlyLegal, 23rd May 2014
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘Postal service of a claim form by the court in disregard of the claimant’s request to return the claim form to him so that he could serve it personally, in breach of CPR r 6.4(1)(b), was an “error of procedure”, within rule 3.10, and so did not invalidate service.’
WLR Daily, 15th May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘A costs judge is entitled to consider if individual items of costs claimed are proportionate and necessary even if the costs of the litigation overall appear proportionate, the High Court has decided in the first ruling on the issue.’
Litigation Futures, 16th May 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Eleven years on from the House of Lords’ decision in Lagden v O’Connor [2003] UKHL 64 “impecuniosity” remains a hot topic in the world of credit hire. The Court of Appeal case of Zurich v Umerji [2014] EWCA Civ 357 handed down on 25 March 2014 is an important case on credit hire for both Claimants and Defendants. Its impact is likely to resound further in light of the Jackson reforms as clarified by Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 2nd May 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Given the continued attention commanded by the stream of relief from sanctions decisions and the implementation of the Jackson reforms, it is unsurprising that the secondary legislation that brought into force section 17 of the Crime and Courts Act 2013, and which made related changes to the CPR (see Legal update, The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2014 published), passed by relatively unnoticed. It would, however, be a mistake not to note the significant changes to the County Court and its jurisdiction. These will throw up significant practical issues for the courts themselves and, in some regions more than others, will create a number of tactical dilemmas for litigators.’
Full story (PDF)
Littleton Chambers, 7th May 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘Mr Justice Coulson has handed down his lengthy judgment on the costs matters arising from the claim made by Greenwich Millennium Village Limited (“GMVL”). His judgment may prove of particular interest for his consideration of costs issues which arise when, as so often in the TCC, parties seek to pass on liabilities along a contractual chain.’
Full story (PDF)
4 New Square, 6th May 2014
Source: www.4newsquare.com
‘The Court of Appeal last week handed down judgment in the case of Chartwell Estate Agents v. Fergies Property & Anor. [2014] E. W. C. A. Civ. 506. It is an important decision for all civil practitioners, as it deals directly with the question of relief from sanction under the modified Rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules, and mollifies to some extent the (at least perceived) harshness of the rule in Mitchell v. News Group Newspapers [2014] 1 W. L. R. 795 – so much so that the Westlaw service run by respected legal publishers Sweet & Maxwell now state that the Mitchell decision has received “mixed or mildly negative judicial treatment”.’
The Barristers’ Hub, 23rd April 2014
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
Kaneria v Kaneria and others: [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch); [2014] WLR (D) 177
‘An in-time application for extension of time was not to be treated as if it were an application for relief from sanctions, but was to be judged against the overriding objective rather than CPR r 3.9. When dealing with an in-time application, the court was not to give paramount status to the considerations of enforcing compliance with rules, Practice Directions and orders.’
WLR Daily, 15th April 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024