CONSULTING
|
DIGITAL FORENSICS
|
E-DISCLOSURE
LEGAL NEWS Issue 12
www.cclgroupltd.com
JACKSON – TOUGH LOVE? by Umar Yasin
As discussed briefly in the last issue of Legal News, the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 was undoubtedly seen as a watershed moment in terms of the strict approach to compliance adopted by the courts post-Jackson. Despite what has, at times, seemed to be a bit of a phoney war when it comes to enforcing the Jackson Reforms, this decision by the Court of Appeal should leave no litigator in any doubt that non-compliance is a serious issue; the courts will continue to take a tough and less forgiving approach, especially when considering any relief from sanctions under the new CPR 3.9. Both the background and timeline to the ‘Plebgate’ case are well-known, where Mitchell’s solicitors failed to file a costs budget in time, consequently leading to his budget being limited only to the applicable court fees. Master McCloud then refused to grant relief, saying that ‘the stricter approach under the Jackson Reforms has been central to this judgment.’ For the Court of Appeal, the central
IN THIS
EDITIO N... > Jacks on - toug h love? > Thou ghts for th e month > Big d ata a informati nd on gove rnance > The fu ture of v oice processin g > The re al CSI: C CTV analysis > CPD cours commerc es for ial litigato rs > Abou t CCL
question here was: how strictly should the courts now enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders? The court went on to quote approvingly from Lord Dyson’s 18th implementation lecture on the Jackson Reforms, from 22nd March 2013, where he made clear that ‘the tougher, more robust approach to rule-compliance and relief from sanctions is intended to ensure that justice can be done in the majority of cases….parties can no longer expect indulgence if they fail to comply with their procedural obligations.’ The court discussed in detail the key considerations under CPR 3.9, and, despite the court being required to consider ‘all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application,’ the two key considerations which are specifically mentioned within the Rule ought to be given more weight. This means that the emphasis is now firmly on the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, with the need to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders, and, as the Court of Appeal
pointed out, ‘these considerations should now be regarded as of paramount importance and be given great weight.’ The Court of Appeal also considered trivial breaches, warning that ‘wellintentioned incompetence, for which there is no good reason, should not usually attract relief from a sanction unless the default is trivial.’ In Wyche v Careforce Group [2013] EWHC 3282 (Comm), which we also discussed in Legal News Issue 10, Mr Justice Walker did grant relief from sanctions, despite finding that the failures in that case were ‘material in the sense that they were more than trivial.’ The Court of Appeal made clear that the principle ‘de minimis non curat lex’ (the law is not concerned with trivial things) applies equally here when considering relief under CPR 3.9, as it does across other areas of law, and if a breach was considered to be non-trivial, then the onus was on the defaulting party to persuade the court that relief should be granted. Continued on page 3…
1