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:

QOCS/no reasonable grounds for bringing proceedings:In Wall v British Canoe Union (2015) HHJ Lopez, sitting in the Birmingham County Court struck out the claimant’s statement of case in a personal injury claim on the basis that it disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing such a claim. The Judge then considered QOCS and whether he should make an order based on CPR r.44.15 which provides that “orders made against the claimant may be enforced to the full extent of such orders without the permission of the court where the proceedings have been struck out on the grounds that (a) the claimant has disclosed no reasonable grounds for bringing the proceedings…”. The Judge ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs. 30/7/15

Costs management/Pre and Post April 2013 test for proportionality: In BP (suing as Administrator of the Estate of MP deceased) v Cardiff & Vale University Local Health Board (2015), Senior Costs Judge Gordon-Saker sitting in the Supreme Courts Costs Office considered the proportionality of the costs claimed in this clinical negligence claim, both pre-April 2013 and post-April 2013, when the test changed. The Judge also considered the format of the claimant’s bill and the costs of the budgeting and costs management process. 17/8/15

Relief from sanctions/notice of funding:In Jackson v Thompsons Solicitors (2015) relief from sanctions was granted where there was a failure to comply with pre-April 2013 costs provisions, requiring a notice of funding to be provided in order to recover success fees. In a borderline decision, the failure of the other party to raise an issue at the time as to non-compliance appears to have been the deciding factor in granting relief. The claimant was at pains to point out late application for relief meant that the defendant avoided the stricter test in Mitchell, but Simon J considered such an argument raised both theoretical and practical difficulties. 10/2/15

In the following case 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:

Failure to comply with directions/order for specific disclosure: In Ali v CIS General Insurance (2015) Judge Cryan sitting in Central London County Court upheld the decision of District Judge Coonan, to strike out the claimant’s claim for failure to comply with an order for specific disclosure. Applying the three stage test set out in Denton, the Judge concluded that the claimant’s breach of the order was real and far from trivial, that the claimant had failed to give an explanation for the failure to comply with the order and that the claimant’s failure to comply threatened the trial date that had been set. The Judge also concluded that the District Judge’s order, striking out the claim was within in her discretion. (undated written judgment)


For further information please contact Marcus Davies, Professional Support Executive, on 0161 603 5146

By Marcus Davies

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.