header-logo header-logo

18 October 2013
Issue: 7580 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Costs

Michael and another v Middleton and another [2013] All ER (D) 124 (Oct)

The new CPR 3.9 was in force from 1 April 2013. The new rule required that the court considered all the circumstances of the case so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and (b) to enforce compliance with the Rules, Practice Directions and orders of the court. The new rule applied in respect of any application made on or after 1 April 2013, which was the date on which the amended rule came into force which applied in its opening words “on any application for relief from any sanction imposed”. In a case of non-compliance with an unless order a party would be required to show a material change of circumstances in order to obtain relief from sanctions. Although the checklist of relevant considerations in the old rule 3.9 had been removed, they nonetheless represented matters which continued to be relevant as considerations for the court in making

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

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

NLJ Career Profile: Nikki Bowker, Devonshires

Nikki Bowker, head of litigation and dispute resolution at Devonshires, on career resilience, diversity in law and channelling Elle Woods when the pressure is on

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Ellisons—Sarah Osborne

Leasehold enfranchisement specialist joins residential property team

DWF—Chris Air

DWF—Chris Air

Firm strengthens commercial team in Manchester with partner appointment

NEWS
Contract damages are usually assessed at the date of breach—but not always. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Gascoigne, knowledge lawyer at LexisNexis, examines the growing body of cases where courts have allowed later events to reshape compensation
The Supreme Court has restored ‘doctrinal coherence’ to unfair prejudice litigation, writes Natalie Quinlivan, partner at Fieldfisher LLP, in this week' NLJ
The High Court’s refusal to recognise a prolific sperm donor as a child’s legal parent has highlighted the risks of informal conception arrangements, according to Liam Hurren, associate at Kingsley Napley, in NLJ this week
The Court of Appeal’s decision in Mazur may have settled questions around litigation supervision, but the profession should not simply ‘move on’, argues Jennifer Coupland, CEO of CILEX, in this week's NLJ
A simple phrase like ‘subject to references’ may not protect employers as much as they think. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, analyses recent employment cases showing how conditional job offers can still create binding contracts
back-to-top-scroll