header-logo header-logo

06 June 2014
Issue: 7609 / Categories: Features , Civil way , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Civil way: 6 June 2014

Agreeing extensions, save ££££££s online & consumers growing stronger

THE M WORD

You know the M word and it’s not Marmalade or Magnesium. We shall try to keep our promise and not mention it again or too often. This will be a challenge as we appraise you of the Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014 (SI 2014/1233) which came into force yesterday, 5 June 2014, without any transitional provisions.

Now MA Lloyd & Sons Ltd v PPC International Ltd [2014] EWHC 41 QB, [2014] (D) 130 (Jan) (see “Civil way”, NLJ, 21 March 2014, p18) in the wake of that M case focused attention on CPR 3.8. This scuppers any effective agreement between parties to extend time for compliance with a direction or court order which carries a sanction for non-compliance. The application for an extension has had to be made to the court although it has been open to the non-defaulting party to state it will not oppose an extension subject to the court’s blessing. Lloyd & Sons has led to

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers—Sophie Barrett-Brown

Withers drives further growth in its UK immigration team with new partner Sophie Barrett-Brown

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal—Esther Amoako

Venus Legal invests in next generation of legal talent as specialist litigation practice grows

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips—Catrina Smith

Fisher Phillips continues momentum in London with arrival of Catrina Smith

NEWS
Restrictions on workplace non-disclosure agreements could make settlements slower, more complex and more expensive when reforms expected in 2027 take effect
Private prosecutors face closer scrutiny under Crown Prosecution Service guidance designed to strengthen accountability and consistency when intervention is requested
Foreign states cannot necessarily claim immunity for cyber operations launched abroad against computers in Britain, following a divided Supreme Court ruling
Defendants who make unsupported complaints about their lawyers risk losing legal aid while confiscation proceedings continue without representation
Lawyers advising Russian clients face different sanctions restrictions across the UK, EU and US, despite their shared objective of increasing pressure on Russia
back-to-top-scroll