I'm interested in…

  • Strategy & Procedure
  • Motor
  • Fraud
  • Disease
  • Catastrophic Injury
  • Commercial Insurance
  • Costs
  • Liability
  • Local Authority
  • Professional Indemnity
  • 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:

Costs management/agreeing budgets: In Caliendo & Anor v Mischon De Reya & Anor (2015) although a consent order signed by the parties ahead of a CMC failed to include a costs management order, that was the clear intention of the parties and Rose J held that the consent order should be amended to reflect that an agreement had been reached in respect of the parties’ costs budgets. 18/11/15

Relief from sanctions/breach of unless order: In Sinclair & Anor v Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP & Ors (2015), relief from sanctions would not be granted as a result of the claimant’s failure to comply with an unless order. Popplewell J sitting in the Queen’s Bench Decision held that the prejudice to the claimant was insufficient a reason to grant relief, where the requirements set out under both Mitchell and Denton and under the rules had not been met. 20/11/15

Relief from sanctions/Private Room Appointment Form: In Tamalt v Google UK Ltd (2015) Thirlwall J concluded that, whilst the claimant’s failure to complete a Private Room Appointment Form was in breach of the Civil Procedure Rules and, whilst the breach had been significant and serious and was without good reason, the Master had been wrong to strike out the claim. The claimant had not been given notice that the claim would be struck out if he did not comply and striking out the claim was a disproportionate outcome. 12/11/15

In the case listed below, whilst not relating to an application for relief from sanctions per se, the court had regard to the judgment in Denton and the three stage test set out therein:

Request for expert evidence/appeal against judgment: In O’Connor v Pennine Acute Hospitals NHS Trust (2015), the Court of Appeal considered a trial judge’s refusal to allow an application for further expert evidence made on the first day of a trial in a clinical negligence claim. The position of the expert witnesses had changed as more factual evidence had become available and as discussions between the experts took place, which lead to the Trust making an application for leave to obtain a report from a consultant anaesthetist. The Court of Appeal concluded that the application had been made at the latest possible stage and that the third test in Denton was entirely pertinent. 3/12/15

Contact

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

Share your views

Please complete your details below to share your views. All comments are moderated and only your name and comment will be visible.

Your Comment

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.

Top