header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
30 June 2014 / Mark Surguy , Tracey Stretton , Damian Murphy
Categories: Opinion , Budgeting
printer mail-detail

The dark side of Mitchell (Pt 1)

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

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

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll