*/
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.
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear – why standing on the sidelines is not an option
With the property market witnessing significant changes since the beginning of the pandemic, Fleet Street Wealth’s Managing Director Julian Morgan considers the future of the home, the second home and the office
In partnership with the Bar Council, LexisNexis is offering up to 60% off its extensive webinar offering.
Chambers is expanding its team.
Making a move from the Bar to a career in governance: Maria Brookes outlines three good reasons to switch and how to do it
Inés Rivera explains how speech recognition can help barristers create accurate documentation faster
The barrister-author talks to Chris Henley QC about the parallels between farming and farmers, and the law and barristers, and the dilemmas of combining young children with continued practice at the Bar
Permitting vulnerable people to be heard is a difficult role, but I have so much joy from it. Mary Prior QC shares life lessons with Aadhithya Anbahan
If the Bar is complacent on the issue of race, then we will perpetuate the same racial inequities that continue to pervade our society, writes Professor Leslie Thomas QC
Politically neutral, yet loud and clear why standing on the sidelines is not an option
Narita Bahra QC and Don Ramble take a look at the new disclosure sections on the Digital Case System, together with the latest versions of the AGs Disclosure Guidelines and CPIA Code of Practice
