I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Professional Indemnity
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Liability
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Local Authority
  • Scotland

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/expert evidence In Poile v Maidstone & Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust (2015) Simon Brown QC allowed the claimant to adduce a supplementary report from an expert on the basis that the defendant would not be prejudiced by the report being admitted and that by admitting the evidence, the court would be able to more accurately assess the case when it came to trial. The claimant’s failure to comply was not serious and the evidence should be admitted.

Relief from sanctions/failure to properly conduct disclosure In Smailes & Anor v McNally & Anor (2015) Judge Pelling QC sitting in the Chancery Court refused the claimant relief from sanctions in respect of an unless order, where there was a failure to conduct disclosure properly, the claimant having failed to carry out a proper search for documents, which amounted to a serious breach The claimant’s conduct caused delay and extra expense to be occurred and there was a failure to properly take action to rectify the default.

Relief from sanctions/filing appeal bundle In Yampolskaya v AB Bankas Snoras (In Bankruptcy) (2015) Mr Justice Green held that it was not appropriate to grant relief from sanctions, where a litigant in person failed to read court documents properly which meant that a deadline was missed and the failure to comply was serious and significant. Failure to file a bundle could lead to delay and the aim of Denton was to urge compliance with the orders of the court.

Relief from sanctions/failure to serve claim form In Matthew Cant (T/A M J Cant Photography) v Hertz Corp & Ors (2015) Judge Hacon held that it was appropriate to grant relief from sanctions, where a failure to serve a claim form within the four month time limit was neither serious, nor significant and the failure to comply did not make any practical difference. The claimant’s solicitors could not be criticised for serving an unsealed copy of the claim form.

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.