Jackson in Action: case law
In our regular monthly round up of cases we look at the effects of the changes to the Civil Procedure Rules under the Jackson Reforms:
Relief from sanctions/failure to serve witness evidence: DWF – Mark Robson. In Khan v Royal Sun Alliance (2014), HHJ Butler sitting in Preston County Court on 26 September 2014, allowed an appeal against a decision to reinstate a claim that had been struck out as a result of the Claimant’s failure to serve witness evidence in accordance with directions. Applying the decision in Denton, His Honour concluded that the failure to comply was a serious and significant breach and that there was no evidence before the court to explain why the deadline had not been complied with. The Claimant was ordered to pay £6,000 on account of Defence costs.
Relief from sanctions/failure to serve documents and statements: In Anstalt (A Company Registered in Liechenstein) v MIR Steel UK Ltd & Anor (2014) Asplin J held that a party who had served documents and witness statements late and after the close of evidence in a trial, would be permitted leave to rely upon the documents but not the statements as there was no good reason why the statements could not have been served earlier and the justice of the case meant that the documents should be allowed in.
Relief from sanctions/failure to attend to disclosure and attend trial: In Blemain Finance v Mukhtar & Anor (2014), Globe J held that there were no good reasons for the Defendants’ combined failure to comply with an order for disclosure and attend trial and relief from sanctions was not granted.
Relief from sanctions/notice of additional liabilities: In Caliendo & Anor v Mischon De Reya (2014) Hildyard J held that a party’s failure to serve notice of the existence of a CFA and ATE insurance would not have altered the Defendant’s position as regards settlement and as such the failure did not have a serious or significant adverse effect on the efficient conduct or progress of the litigation and relief from sanctions would be granted.
The following are cases where the court had regard to the test in Mitchell and/or Denton, notwithstanding the fact that they were not applications for relief from sanctions:
Relief from sanctions regime/service of respondents notice: In Altomart Ltd v Salford Estates (No.2) (2014) the Court of Appeal considered an application for an extension to serve a respondent’s notice in light of the test in Mitchell and Denton. The respondent’s notice was filed a month late but the delay could not be considered serious or significant and was not likely to have affected the proceedings.
Relief from sanctions regime/extension of time for service of particulars: In Frontier Estates v Berwin Leighton Paisner LLP (2014) the Master’s failure to consider an application from an extension of time for service of particulars under CPR r.3.1, although an error, it was correct, held HHJ John Male QC that the Master considered the overriding objective and he was correct in his conclusion that there had been no satisfactory explanation for the delay and that the respondent would suffer the greater prejudice if the application were granted. An extension of time would not be granted.
Relief from sanctions regime/failure to file acknowledgment of service: In Robinson v Kensington & Chelsea Royal London Borough & Anor (2014) the failure to file an acknowledgment of service on time was not serious or significant held Sir Michael Tugendhat as it only amounted to a five day delay and there had already been delay due to the difficulty that the Claimant had had in issuing proceedings. An extension would be granted.
For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Lawyer, on +44(0)161 603 5146.
This information is intended as a general discussion surrounding the topics covered and is for guidance purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice and should not be regarded as a substitute for taking legal advice. DWF is not responsible for any activity undertaken based on this information.