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 file listing questionnaire: In British Gas Trading v Oak Cash & Carry Ltd (2014) Mrs Justice McGowan overturned a decision to grant relief in a case where a party had failed to file a listing questionnaire. Sitting in the High Court, the Judge held that the defaulting party failed the three stage test in Denton and that that decision did not alter the statement of principle in Mitchell.
Relief from sanctions/failure to acknowledge service: In Talos Capital Ltd v JCS Investment Holding XIV Ltd (2014) Flaux J refused the Defendant an extension of time to acknowledge service. Sitting it the Commercial Court, the Judge held that the delay of 75 days was significant and that the non-compliance appeared to be deliberate or tactical. In any event, the Judge concluded that the Defendant’s defence was unlikely to succeed.
Relief from sanctions/failure to serve witness statements: In Owners and/or Bareboat Charterers of Motor Vessel Coal Hunter v Owners and/or Charterers of Motor Vessel Yusho Regulus (2014), a party was permitted to rely upon a statement from a vessels pilot, notwithstanding the fact that there had been a delay of a year. But sitting in the Admiralty Court, Teare J only permitted the party leave to rely upon the statement to the extent that it did not prejudice the opposing party, but leave was refused where the opposing party was unable to investigate specific facts.
The following are cases where the court had regard to the test in Mitchell and/or Denton, notwithstanding the fact that there were not applications for relief from sanctions:
Response to request for further information/failure to file compliant response to request for further information: In The Matter of Bankside Hotels Ltd sub nom Griffith v Gourgey (2014) the failure to sign a response to request for further information did not of itself render the response a nullity. Sitting in the Chancery Division, S Monty QC held that whilst there was a need for compliance with orders generally, the decision in Denton meant that an insistence on compliance was wrong where the failure had no overall effect on the proceedings.
For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive, on 0161 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.