Monthly Archives: November 2013

DECISION OF THE COUNTY COURT FOLOWING MITCHELL: ROMANO –v-K PAPERS (BLACKBURN) LTD

The courts now have a clear basis upon which to consider applications for reinstatement following the decision in Mitchell.  The case of Romano –v- K Papers (Blackburn) Ltd an appeal heard at Manchester County Court today (29th November 2013) provides a clear example of how difficult  obtaining relief from sanctions will be. THE CASE Romano […]

THE MITCHELL CRITERIA FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: A DETAILED EXAMINATION

There has been much comment about the effect of the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell on litigation and litigators.  Here we look, in considerable detail, at the guidance given in relation to relief from sanctions and associated case law. THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CRITERIA One significant element of the judgment is that there are, […]

MITCHELL: THE COMMENTARY CONTINUES

The commentary on the fallout of the Mitchell decision continues apace.  One of the most interesting comments, however, comes from Sir Henry Brooke, former Lord Justice who tweets at @HenryBrooke1. Here we look at those observations and other links to commentary on the Mitchell decision.  THE COURT OF APPEAL WAS APPLYING ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES  Henry Brooke was […]

MITCHELL: 20 KEY POINTS OF JUDGMENT

The Court of Appeal gave judgment in Mitchell -v- News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 today.  The case has been much covered. The Claimant’s application for relief from sanctions was refused.  The key points of general importance are: 1. CPR 3.9. The explicit reference to need for costs to be conducted efficiently, at proportionate […]

NEW PRACTICE DIRECTION: RIGHT TO BUY CLAIMS

The Master of the Rolls has issued a Practice Direction dealing specifically with “right to buy” claims. That is negligence actions against solicitors in relation to mortgage broking. Those claims are now allocated to a specific Master. Any existing claims in the High Court or County Court should be transferred to the Chancery Division.  Any […]

BIFFA WASTE SERVICES: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: FULL TRANSCRIPT NOW AVAILABLE

 Biffa Waste Services Ltd –v- Ali Dinler [2013] is a case where the judge, on appeal, overturned an earlier order granting relief from sanctions. The full transcript is now available and is notable for its detailed consideration of the principles “post-Jackson” applications for relief from sanctions. THE FACTS This was a road traffic accident where […]

AVOIDING NEGLIGENCE CLAIMS 6: COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE CLIENT

Procter -v- Raleys Previous posts in this series have concentrated upon limitation issues.  This post looks at the recent decision  of Judge Gosnell in Procter –v- Raleys (Leeds County Court 6/11/2013). In particular what it demonstrates about the need to communicate with the client.  THE FACTS OF PROCTOR  Mr Procter had instructed the defendant to […]

DO YOU HAVE TO FILE FORM H IN PART 8 PROCEEDINGS? SOMETHING YOU SHOULD BE SURE ABOUT

 All litigators know (or should know) the central importance of Form H in civil procedure. If you don’t file the form in time then you don’t get paid. A colleague today asked me whether it was necessary to file a Form H in Part 8 proceedings. The answer may surprise many.  THE REQUIREMENT TO FILE […]

“AN OBJECT LESSON IN HOW MODERN LITIGATION SHOULD NOT BE CONDUCTED.”

 It may be thought that commentary on issues of procedural default is in abeyance until the Mitchell decision from the Court of Appeal. However, as recent posts have shown, cases are still coming through thick and fast.  When a judge makes the observation cited above that case clearly requires close examination. Here we look at […]

DEFAULT, DELAY AND EXPERT EVIDENCE: COURT OF APPEAL LAYS DOWN THE LAW

The case of Boyle –v- Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis provides another example of the problems caused by late service of evidence. The Court of Appeal set down clear guidance of the new culture of intolerance to delay.  THE BOYLE CASE Boyle was an appeal to the Court of Appeal by the claimant who […]