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:
Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting regime/suspension of QOCS: In Magon v Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance PLC (2016) Recorder Berkley upheld the claimant’s appeal against the decision of the Deputy District Judge, who had ordered a suspension of the QOCS regime, where the claimant had discontinued his claim against the defendant on the basis that they had been sued in error. Recorder Berkley concluded that the DDJ should have considered that the claim had been discontinued, as opposed to struck out and should have also considered the basis that the QOCS regime had been introduced. The DDJ had not weighed up all the factors before arriving at his conclusion. 26/2/16 (this case has recently been brought to our attention)
The following case, whilst not a relief from sanctions application per se, demonstrated the court’s application of the test in Mitchell and Denton:
Exchange of statements/failure to serve witness evidence in time: In Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd (2016) the claimant sought an extension of time for service of witness evidence. The claimant had served statements two months after the date for exchange and a month before the trial. Hearing the claimant’s application, HHJ Moulder concluded that the failure to comply was serious and significant and, refusing relief, stated that there was no good reason for the failure to comply. The claimant should have sought an extension of time for service of witness evidence before they did. Even though the delay was of no fault of the claimant, the application must be refused. 21/6/16 Note: we understand that an appeal has been lodged in this case which is to be heard by the Court of Appeal in July next year.
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.