‘Litigants are not entitled to make a second application for relief from sanctions unless there has been a “material change in circumstances”, the Supreme Court has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 17th December 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘Mishcon de Reya has failed in its bid to overturn the grant of relief from sanctions made in favour of claimants who are suing the London law firm for professional negligence but failed to serve their funding notice in time.’
Litigation Futures, 13th October 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The government is to introduce new rules to stop “politically-motivated” boycotts by local councils.’
BBC News, 3rd October 2015
Source: www.bbc.co.uk
‘Councils and local authorities are to be blocked from boycotting Israeli products or pursuing other foreign policy goals that conflict with the government.’
The Guardian, 3rd October 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘The UK statistics watchdog has asked the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure its statements on jobseeker sanctions are “objective and impartial” following a series of complaints by leading experts.’
The Guardian, 7th August 2015
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
R v R [2015] EWCA Civ 796; [2015] WLR (D) 337
‘Neither article 9 of Council Regulation (EU) No 269/2014 nor regulation 10(2)(a) of the Ukraine (European Union Financial Sanctions) (No 2) Regulations 2014 were contravened by an order requiring a husband, who lived in Russia and who was subject to sanctions imposed by the EU Regulation, to pay interim maintenance into his former wife’s Russian bank account.’
WLR Daily, 24th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Viridor Waste Management Ltd v Veolia ES Ltd [2015] (unreported)
The Claimant was awarded costs on the indemnity basis when the Defendant had taken unreasonable advantage of the Claimant’s late service of its particulars of claim in the hope of obtaining a windfall strike-out when it was obvious that relief from sanctions was appropriate.’
Zenith PI Blog, 8th June 0215
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘In Home Group v Matrejek [2015] EWHC 441 (QB), the High Court has applied Rule 3.9 of the Civil Procedure Rules and the guidance on applications for relief from sanctions in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 (our note here) to a possession claim based on nuisance and anti-social behaviour.’
Nearly Legal, 24th March 2015
Source: www.nearlylegal.co.uk
‘A High Court judge has granted relief from sanctions, after a law firm blamed pressure of work for late service of evidence in a Russian libel case.’
Litigation Futures, 18th March 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The judgment in SR v RS demonstrates that parties cannot, in the face of reasonable offers to settle, continue to litigate matters indefinitely without the spectre of cost sanctions.’
Halsbury’s Law Exchange, 27th January 2015
Source: www.halsburyslawexchange.co.uk
‘A claimant’s failure to update his budget in advance of an unplanned preliminary hearing has led a High Court judge to rule that “every assumption” would be made against him in assessing the costs.’
Litigation Futures, 28th January 2015
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘British Gas Trading Ltd v Oak Cash & Carry Ltd [2014] EWHC 4058 (QB) 5th December 2014. Relief from sanctions refused where a failure to file the LQ in breach of an unless order led to the loss of the trial date. Although the Defendant applied for relief from sanctions, there was no for the default judgment to be set aside, and no evidence in support of such an application. In these circumstances, the court should not treat the application as though it had been made.’
Zenith PI Blog, 15th December 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘The Mitchell principles, restated in Denton, have a “direct bearing” on whether courts should impose strike-outs for non-compliance, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’
Litigation Futures, 16th December 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The High Court has overturned a judgment that granted leniency to a defendant who missed two deadlines for filing a document in a civil case.’
Law Society’s Gazette, 8th December 2014
Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk
‘Mitchell [2014] 1 WLR 795 and Denton [2014] 1 WLR 3926 dealt with the situation of an application out of time, that is to say when the time had expired for performance of a step dictated by a rule or by practice direction or a court order had expired. But the further question arises, To what extent do the principles laid down there apply in the situation where one applies in time, that is to say before the expiry date? That is of great importance, because, if one is handling a case properly, it should become obvious, at least some days if not weeks in advance, that a particular time limit is not going to be able to be achieved. This may be for a variety of reasons, sometimes because of illness or – tell it not in Gath! – the delays of counsel. This matter was considered in depth fairly recently in Re Guidezone Ltd, Kaneria-v-Kaneria [2014] 1 WLR 3728, by Nugee J. In a full and careful judgment, the judge considered what was the position when an in-time application was made under CPR r.3.1(2)(a) for extension of time. He held that such an application was not an application for relief from sanctions, nor was it closely analogous to one. Therefore, Mitchell did not apply to it.’
Zenith PI Blog, 25th November 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
‘I will look briefly at two points:
1. The re-consideration of the Mitchell approach in Denton shows a change in the judicial approach and may well be seen as helpful to EJs considering similar problems. Indeed, consistent with earlier CA authority, it may be that EJs will be expected to follow the same three stage approach as found in Denton.
2. The underlying reasoning of the CA in Denton may provide guidance on the approach to be taken towards a wider range of case management issues.’
Littleton Chambers, 27th October 2014
Source: www.littletonchambers.com
‘The High Court has denied the Lord Chancellor relief from sanctions in a case involving an attempt by the Legal Aid Agency (LAA) to reclaim £160,000 plus interest from a former law firm 16 years after the final payments were made.’
Litigation Futures, 11th November 2014
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The recent decision in the case of Altomart Limited v Salford Estates (No. 2) Limited [2014] EWCA Civ 1408 gave the Court of Appeal a further opportunity to revisit the issues raised in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd. It provided further indication of how the court is now more willing to grant relief from sanction where such refusal would lead to a potential injustice in the face of little prejudice being caused by the breach.’
The Barristers’ Hub, 31st October 2014
Source: www.barristershub.co.uk
‘After the turbulence of the past year, provoked primarily by the Mitchell case [2014] 1WLR 795, we all surely know about relief from sanctions – but do we?’
Zenith PI Blog, 22nd October 2014
Source: www.zenithpi.wordpress.com
Commercial Litigation: The Post-Jackson World (PDF)
Speech by Lord Justice Jackson
Law Society Conference, 21st October 2014
Source: www.judiciary.gov.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024