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 comply with unless order: In Patterson v Spencer and Ors (2017) the Court of Appeal again considered what test should be applied under Mitchell and Denton. The claimant applied for relief from sanctions after she had failed to comply with an unless order, that she file a transcript from an earlier hearing. Her application for relief was heard a month before the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in Mitchell and was refused. Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal held that the Judge hearing the application for relief from sanctions fell into error in three ways by relying upon Mitchell. The claimant's failure to file the transcript was not significant or serious and the claimant had a good reason for failing to comply, which the Judge should not have discounted. No prejudice would be caused by the granting of relief. 17/3/17
Assignment of CFAs/LASPO transitional provisions: In Plevin v Paragon Personal Finance Ltd (2017) the Supreme Court considered the recoverability of a pre-LASPO CFA that provided for a success fee and the recovery of ATE. After the original CFA had been entered into which included an ATE policy that provided cover up to trial, it was then subsequently assigned to two solicitors, who followed in the court record and the policy was "topped up" to extend the cover to subsequent stages in the litigation. The appellant argued that a novation of the original CFA took place on each of those occasions that the CFA was assigned, rendering the agreement unenforceable, as it did not comply with the transitional provisions. The Supreme Court held that the transitional provisions were there to ensure continuity and deliver certainty and that the original CFA could be assigned. 29/3/17
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.