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 budgets/subsequent summary assessment: In Sony Communications International AB v SSH Communications Security Corp (2016) Roger Wyand QC, sitting in the Chancery Division, provided guidance as to when on summary assessment the court might allow costs for particular budget phases that exceed those sums allowed in the approved budget. The claimant had on summary assessment suggested that, where it had overspent in the Trial Preparation phase, but underspent on the Trial phase then it could combine the amounts allowed for the two phases together, something the Judge was not prepared to allow, but the court did allow the claimant to increase the costs recoverable under the Trial phase. The court also permitted the claimant to increase the costs that could be recovered under the third phase on the basis that there was a good reason to depart from the costs allowed in the budget, even though the clamant had not sought leave to depart from the budget. 24/11/16

Relief from sanctions/specific disclosure: In Eaglesham v Ministry of Defence (2016) the defendant’s defence was struck out after its application for relief from sanctions was refused. The defendant had failed to comply with an unless order that it provide specific disclosure of documents and the court refused to extend the time to comply. On hearing the defendant’s application for an extension of time, which had been made eight months after the date it was supposed to comply with Andrews J, sitting in the QBD was critical of the defendant’s failure to provide any evidence addressing or explaining the failure to comply with the order. There had been a substantial and serious breach of the unless order, where no good reason for failure to comply had been advanced and where the failure to comply had led to substantial delay and where allowing relief would lead to serious further delay to the litigation. 24/11/16 

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