Apparently
it is therapeutic to revisit earlier traumas.
It is hard
to believe that it is only two and a half years since the Mitchell litigation
changed the world. Who can forget those immortal words of the Lord Dyson, Master
of the Rolls –
“There now
has to be a shift away from exclusively focussing on doing justice in the
individual case”.
We then had
the Civil Litigation equivalent of the Reign of Terror. There was the alarming case of Romano where a case was struck out due to a delay of one day
advising the court of the outcome of a stay on proceedings. Then there was the
action struck out following a delay of 45 minutes. Litigators could be seen
wandering wide eyed as they worried about what minor oversight might bring an
end to a promising career. As Rod Evans from FOIL famously put it – ‘We haven’t
got a clue what we are doing.’
Then we
began to come to earth with Denton
in 2015. Dyson made it clear that some judges had been a bit over enthusiastic.
The Court of Appeal simplified the test for relief from sanctions –
- Is the breach serious or significant?
- what is the reason for the breach?
Most importantly there was a third factor –
“The
important misunderstanding that has occurred is that, if (i) there is a
non-trivial
(now serious or significant) breach and (ii) there is no good reason for the breach, the
application for relief from sanctions will automatically fail. That is not so and is not
what the court said in Mitchell: see para 37. Rule 3.9(1) requires that, in every case,the court will consider “all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application”.
(now serious or significant) breach and (ii) there is no good reason for the breach, the
application for relief from sanctions will automatically fail. That is not so and is not
what the court said in Mitchell: see para 37. Rule 3.9(1) requires that, in every case,the court will consider “all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application”.
Collective
sighs of relief could be heard across the nation.
So where
are we now? We may be back on planet earth but there is no room for
complacency. The way we litigate has still changed.
Some recent
cases are helpful –
In O’Connor
v Pennine Acute Hospitals [2015] EWCA Civ 1244 the Defendant was refused permission to bring in a new expert on the
first day of a trial, which would have led to an adjournment. I think we would
all agree with that one.
More recent cases are clear reminders of the need to stay focussed,
particularly in relation to the need to apply promptly for relief.
In Gentry v Miller an application to set judgment aside was refused due
to delay in making the application. This was case where there was a delay of several
months. Interestingly there was a potential allegation of fraud which did not
get the insurers off the hook.
Oak v Cash and Carry looks worrying at first. Indeed it has been reported
by some as a finding that the Defence was struck out due to a two day delay in
filing a Listing Questionnaire. In fact there was a breach of an unless order. But
even that might not have been fatal to the Defence if they had applied promptly.
Jackson LJ observed –
‘If the defendant had made an immediate
application for relief at the same time as filing its PTC, or very soon after,
I would have been strongly inclined to grant relief from the sanction of
striking out. To debar a party from defending a £200,000 claim because it was
somewhat late in filing a PTC is not in my view required by rule 3.9’
And
So if you miss a deadline you must act immediately.
There is
a strong temptation to put the troublesome file to one side in the forlorn hope
that the problem will go away. In fact it will get much worse. I would always
advise that the file be passed to a colleague right away. Those of us who supervise should repeat this message - 'It is not necessarily the end of the world if you make a mistake - but it might be if you don't tell us!'.
Since Denton the Courts do have
a more realistic understanding of the real world of litigation. They may grant relief.
So long as you ask for it without
delay!!
Steve, from the other side of the pond, I appreciate your zeal for justice for ordinary folks and your energy in exposing departures from the standard of justice.
ReplyDeleteThank you Cathy!
ReplyDeleteI am a close follower of politics on your side of the pond! Choose wisely.. :-)