Monthly Archives: March 2014

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS CONSIDERED IN THE HIGH COURT AGAIN: MCTEAR CONSIDERED IN DETAIL

The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] EWHC 722 (Ch) was looked at briefly in  an earlier post in relation to the number of cases cited to the Court.  Here we look at the substantive decision in relation to applications for relief from sanctions. (The case is not reported on Bailli at the date of […]

THE COURTS SHOULD NOT MAKE PEREMPTORY ORDERS LIGHTLY: PORTER CAPITAL CORPORATION –V- ZULFIKAR MASTERS CONSIDERED

 The fact that relief from sanctions is now  more difficult emphasises the principle that courts should not make peremptory orders lightly.  The case of Porter Capital –v- Zulfikar (19/3/1014) only on Lawtel at present) is a case to point.  THE FACTS OF PORTER: APPLICATION FOR PEREMPTORY ORDER IF INTERIM PAYMENT NOT MADE After a contested […]

MITCHELL CRITERIA AND SETTING ASIDE DEFAULT JUDGMENTS

There is a discussion of the Mitchell criteria in the context of setting aside a default judgment in the case of Mole -v- Hunter [2014]  EWHC 658 QB. (Tugendhat J). THE FACTS Judgment in default had been entered on a counterclaim in circumstances where the claimant (against whom judgment had been entered) was unaware of […]

MITCHELL CASE IN THE NEWS AGAIN: THIS TIME ON NON-PARTY DISCLOSURE

Despite the costs order upheld by the Court of Appeal the Mitchell libel action continues.   There is a report of a decision today by Tugendhat in relation to an application for disclosure [2014]  EWHC 879 (QB).  It concerned an application for specific disclosure against the  Independent Police Complaints Commissioner. THE APPLICATION The application was […]

LORD JACKSON’S RESPONSE TO THE CIVIL JUSTICE COUNCIL

The Civil Justice Council review of the Jackson reforms received 70 papers in total.  The only ones generally available, to the best of my knowledge, are the ones available on this blog  and the paper provided by Lord Jackson which is available on the CJC website  Points of particular interest in Lord Jackson’s response: SANCTIONS […]

LAW SOCIETY CIVIL JUSTICE CONFERENCE: 30th APRIL 2014: THE PLACE TO BE

I am one of the speakers at The Law Society Civil Justice Section Conference on the 30th April 2014, details of which can be found here. “Venue:The Law Society, 113 Chancery Lane, London WC2A 1PL Cost:From free  Overview CPD Hours 2.25 Join expert speakers such as Mr Justice Ramsey, Gordon Exall, Tony Guise and Keith […]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION: COSTS AWARDED AGAINST “INNOCENT” PARTY

The case of Lakatamia Shipping -v- Nobu Su [2014] EWHC 796 has been dealt with before  on this blog in relation to a successful application for relief from sanctions. The judge’s comments on the costs of the application are now available on Bailli and make interesting reading. The judge ordered that the claimant (who opposed the […]

WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID 1: SANCTIONS: WHAT WAS SAID & WHAT HAS HAPPENED?

There are lots of events coming up dealing with the first anniversary of the Jackson reforms.  It would be an opportune time to look back at the Jackson Report itself to remind us what it said on certain key issues. WHAT THE JACKSON REPORT SAID In the Final Report  Jackson L.J.  recommended that CPR 3.9 […]

SO CPR 3.9 HAS BEEN MADE EASIER? McTEAR COULD BRING A TEAR TO THE EYE

One of the avowed aims of amending CPR 3.9 was to make the judge’s job simpler. The case of McTear -v- Englehard [2014] demonstrates that it has precisely the opposite effect. THE JACKSON REPORT ON THE ISSUE OF SANCTIONS In the Final Report Lord Jackson recommended that CPR 3.9 be amended.  This part of the […]

READ LITIGATION FUTURES TODAY: VIEWS OF THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS ON MITCHELL

Anyone interested in how the Mitchell principles should be construed and may develop should read Litigation Futures  today and its report of the Civil Justice Council of the 24th March 2014. CLOSING REMARKS FROM THE MASTER OF THE ROLLS In summary: The Master of the Rolls is “fairly unrepentant” about what was said. “nobody had […]