header-logo header-logo

30 June 2014 / Mark Surguy , Tracey Stretton , Damian Murphy
Categories: Opinion , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

The dark side of Mitchell (Pt 1)

The first part of an exclusive NLJ series on controlling costs post-Mitchell using technology solutions, by Mark Surguy, Damian Murphy & Tracey Stretton

In Summit Navigation Ltd v Generali Romania Asigurare [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm), [2014] All ER (D) 202 (Feb) Leggett J stated that “all sanctions are [not] equal and are [not] to be treated as equivalent to one another for the purposes of CPR 3.9”. Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, [2014] 2 All ER 430 was a case about a late budget. Summit was about the late provision of security for costs. What is the sanction for a late or defective list of documents?

The imposition of sanctions for non compliance with the rules has been justified by the need for the efficient conduct of proceedings. In this context “efficiency” has been unhelpfully likened to just that: compliance with the rules. However, does this emphasis on compliance really lead to the required efficiency? And what about the effective conduct of litigation?

Care

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

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans—Jason Slatcher

Weightmans appoint new Chief Technology Officer

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya—trainees

Mishcon de Reya announces trainee retention rate of 86%

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers—Charlotte Adams & Fraser Sutton

Sackers welcomes two new Graduate Solicitor Apprentices

NEWS
LexisNexis is delighted to announce the launch of the LexisNexis Legal Awards 2027, celebrating outstanding achievement, innovation and impact across the legal profession
The Legal Services Board (LSB) is to take further enforcement action against the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA), setting additional performance targets and ‘intensifying’ its oversight, it has said
Regulators missed several opportunities to intervene in PM Law Group before it collapsed, an independent review by City firm Jenner & Block has found
An employer’s vicarious liability for the alleged torts of an employee cannot be transferred by TUPE, the Court of Appeal has confirmed
Tiered fees of up to £1,500 for Legal Ombudsman (LeO) cases could leave firms with little option but to pay out, lawyers have warned
back-to-top-scroll