CONSULTING
|
DIGITAL FORENSICS
|
E-DISCLOSURE
LEGAL NEWS Issue 10
www.cclgroupltd.com
JACKSON – THRILLER IN THE MAKING? by Umar Yasin
IN THIS E DITION.. . > Jackso n – Thrille r in the makin g?
Lord Dyson, Master of the Rolls, as well as Lord Justices Stephen Richards, Davis, Lewison, and, of course, Lord Justice Jackson himself. Together they make up the Jackson Five, the quintet of Court of Appeal judges that will oversee the interpretation and implementation of the Jackson Reforms. At least one judge from this quintet will be on the bench for any appeals arising from the Jackson Reforms, although Lord Justice Jackson’s report originally called for just two. This is meant to ensure consistency as far as the Court of Appeal’s interpretation and application of the new Rules is concerned. The courts have been busy over the last six months; there have been a number of cases where parties have fallen foul of the new Rules and have been denied relief from sanctions. Of course, the most high-profile of these has been Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWHC 2179(QB), regarding the libel action of Andrew Mitchell against The Sun over the Plebgate furore.
The Mitchell case was heard on the 7th November and the general consensus seems to be that the Court of Appeal will uphold Master McCloud’s decision not to allow relief from sanctions. Mr Mitchell’s lawyers had failed to serve a costs budget seven days before the first CMC, so Master McCloud restricted Mr Mitchell’s budget only to the applicable court fees. The Master then refused to grant relief from sanctions, and she went on to say that all parties ‘were well aware that this was a case for which budgeting was required.’ There have also been a clutch of other cases where a stringent approach to compliance with the new Rules has been adopted, such as Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Ali Dinler [2013] (QB), where Mr Justice Swift overturned an order granting relief from sanctions. Also, in the case of Michael v Middleton [2013] EWHC 2881 (Ch), where there was a failure to provide satisfactory disclosure despite an unless order and a delay in serving witness statements, HHJ David Cooke struck out the action and dismissed the claimant’s application for relief.
> Handlin g ESI for disclosure > The be nefits of pre-proce ssing > The Re al CSI > CPD co urses > About CCL
In PGF II SA v OMFS Company 1 Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1288, the Court of Appeal considered a refusal to even respond to an invitation to participate in ADR. ADR forms a cornerstone of the Jackson Reforms and in this case the Court of Appeal signalled that the courts will not tolerate the unreasonable refusal of parties. Lord Justice Briggs upheld the costs sanction, saying that the courts had to encourage more proportionate conduct of civil litigation and ‘it is appropriate to emphasise that message by a sanction which, even if a little more vigorous than I would have preferred, nonetheless operates ‘pour encourager les autres.’ Continued on page 3…
1