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:
QOCS/pre and post 1 April 2013 CFAs:In Casseldine v Diocese of Llandaff Board for Social Responsibility (2015) a claimant was shielded from paying the defendant’s costs under the QOCS regime in a personal injury claim, notwithstanding the fact that the claimant had entered into a pre-April 2013 CFA with her solicitors. HHJ Philips sitting in Cardiff County Court held that the signing of a second agreement, post 1 April 2013, that provided that the defendant would not have to pay any additional liabilities in the event that the claimant won, meant that the claimant should be protected from meeting the defendant’s costs under CPR r.44.17 and that the claimant had not entered into a pre-commencement funding arrangement as defined by CPR r.48.2. We understand that permission to appeal the decision has been granted. 3/7/15
Relief from sanctions/strike out of appeal:In Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors (2015) the Court of Appeal held that in striking out of an appeal, the court had not carried out the third stage of the three stage test set out in Denton. Whilst the breach was significant and there was no proper explanation for it, there had been no proper consideration given to whether the order striking out the appeal was a proportionate sanction. Given that the applying party had remedied the default at the time that the order striking out the appeal was made, the strike out order had been plain wrong and the correct order in the circumstances would be to allow the appeal to proceed. 23/7/15
In the following case 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 per se:
Relief from sanctions regime/late service of witness statements: In Fouda v Southwark London Borough Council v Anor (2015) whilst the late service of the claimant’s witness evidence was not serious or significant of itself, it had to be viewed against the background of the claimant’s persistent failure to comply. Cranston J sitting in the Queen’s Bench Division held that whilst the order refusing relief from sanctions was made pre-Denton had the three stage test set out in Denton been applied, the outcome would remain the same and the original decision refusing relief from sanctions would be upheld. 23/4/15
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.