*/
The explosion of satellite litigation following the decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers has led to the Court of Appeal’s judgment this July in Denton, Decadent and Utilise – an attempt to clear up misunderstandings, offer further guidance and implore the legal profession to promote “access to justice at proportionate cost” and not to take advantage of mistakes made by opposing parties “in the hope that relief from sanctions will be denied and that they will obtain... litigation advantage”.
“The court will be more ready in the future to penalise opportunism,” the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Vos warned. At stake was the interpretation of the “relief from sanctions” provisions in Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, which the Rules committee had drafted while rejecting the wording proposed by Lord Justice Jackson, whose comprehensive review of civil procedure led to changes in the Rules and who provided a separate judgment in this appeal.
The main judgment set out three stages for judges to follow. First, they must identify whether the breach of any rule practice direction, or court order was “serious or significant” – using “trivial” would only lead to semantic disputes. Second, they must consider why the failure or default occurred. “It would be inappropriate to produce an encyclopaedia of good and bad reasons.” Third, the judge must consider all circumstances of the case. There is no room for “the traditional approach of giving pre-eminence to the need to decide the claim on the merits”.
Lord Justice Jackson took a different view to the third stage. He felt that the factors in the first two stages were simply amongst matters to be considered, or as the Bar Council submission put it, “have a seat at the table, not the top seats at the table”. Ultimately what Rule 3.9 requires is that the court should “deal justly with the application”. He detailed the many hidden costs of an adjourned trial. “What litigants need is finality, not procrastination.” He stated that he was not, though, criticising the actual decision in Mitchellwhich was within the permissible range of case management discretion by the Master.
The main judgment set out three stages for judges to follow. First, they must identify whether the breach of any rule practice direction, or court order was “serious or significant” – using “trivial” would only lead to semantic disputes. Second, they must consider why the failure or default occurred. “It would be inappropriate to produce an encyclopaedia of good and bad reasons.” Third, the judge must consider all circumstances of the case. There is no room for “the traditional approach of giving pre-eminence to the need to decide the claim on the merits”.
Lord Justice Jackson took a different view to the third stage. He felt that the factors in the first two stages were simply amongst matters to be considered, or as the Bar Council submission put it, “have a seat at the table, not the top seats at the table”. Ultimately what Rule 3.9 requires is that the court should “deal justly with the application”. He detailed the many hidden costs of an adjourned trial. “What litigants need is finality, not procrastination.” He stated that he was not, though, criticising the actual decision in Mitchellwhich was within the permissible range of case management discretion by the Master.
The explosion of satellite litigation following the decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers has led to the Court of Appeal’s judgment this July in Denton, Decadent and Utilise – an attempt to clear up misunderstandings, offer further guidance and implore the legal profession to promote “access to justice at proportionate cost” and not to take advantage of mistakes made by opposing parties “in the hope that relief from sanctions will be denied and that they will obtain... litigation advantage”.
“The court will be more ready in the future to penalise opportunism,” the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Vos warned. At stake was the interpretation of the “relief from sanctions” provisions in Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, which the Rules committee had drafted while rejecting the wording proposed by Lord Justice Jackson, whose comprehensive review of civil procedure led to changes in the Rules and who provided a separate judgment in this appeal.
The age of criminal responsibility, extreme weather and conflict resolution – plus, new protocol for reporting bullying at the Bar
By David Green
Mário Barroso, Head of R&D and Method Development at AlphaBiolabs, examines the forensic science underpinning hair drug testing, its evidential scope and limitations, and why it remains the gold standard for evidencing patterns of drug use in family proceedings
Unlocking your aged debt to fund your tax in one easy step. By Philip N Bristow
Clement Cowley, Partner at The Penny Group, discusses the upcoming changes to pensions and Inheritance Tax and the potential impact on your financial future
Save the Children UK is the latest charity to benefit from a £500 donation from AlphaBiolabs via the company’s Giving Back initiative
Can reflective practice – a staple in other professions – meaningfully support the Bar? Emma Cross reports back from last year’s pilot
Does your constitution comply? The Harman Report provides impetus to update yours – and the sooner the better. Scott Leonard explains how
A decade of reviews and research has disrupted accepted thinking in the search for causality. Suicides following abuse have overtaken domestic homicides. Is the law keeping up? Professor Susan Edwards KC (Hon) examines recent cases and the obstacles to successful prosecution
Why every major sporting event needs an anti-corruption policy. By Louis Weston
At least not that way, says Richard Paige
