header-logo header-logo

Escaping the shadow of Mitchell

16 October 2014
Issue: 7626 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

High Court overturns overly harsh relief from sanctions ruling

A relief from sanctions ruling which relied heavily on Mitchell principles was overly harsh, the High Court has held.

Ruling in Long v Value Properties [2014] EWHC 2981 (Ch), Mr Justice Barling overturned Master Rowley’s “reluctant” refusal to grant relief after a conditional fee agreement and other documents were submitted after an agreed date. He noted that the defendants had tried to take advantage of the failure to submit on time.

The defendants had argued that the £48,462 success fees of counsel and solicitor were not recoverable because of the non-compliance. The claimants countered that a telephone call, e-mail or fax would have resolved the omission, that no prejudice had been caused, and that they would apply for relief from sanction. Master Rowley had indicated that he had no choice, when he heard the case in January, because he had to apply the principles set out in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537.

However, the case pre-dates the Court of Appeal’s decision in Denton v WH White Ltd & Others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, which clarified the principles on sanctions made in Mitchell, and provided guidance on the interpretation of CPR r.3.9 relating to relief from sanctions for breach of rules, practice directions and orders. According to Denton, the judge should take all the circumstances of the case into consideration and relief should be granted unless the breach is serious or significant.

Granting relief, Barling J said: “The defendants’ behaviour here has been precisely the kind of opportunistic, and non-cooperative conduct in litigation condemned by the Court of Appeal in Denton. Had the defendants taken a different course the matter could probably have been completely resolved within the overall period of the extension of time which they applied for and were granted by the claimant, or very soon thereafter.”

NLJ columnist Professor Dominic Regan, of City Law School, says: “So many judges were thrown by the Mitchell decision.

“This was an example of someone knowing that their order was wrong yet still making it (hence the reluctance comment). The outcome was an utter travesty. Denton has done so much good.”

Issue: 7626 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

DWF—19 appointments

DWF—19 appointments

Belfast team bolstered by three senior hires and 16 further appointments

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Knights—Ella Dodgson & Rebecca Laffan

Double hire marks launch of family team in Leeds

NEWS
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Artificial intelligence may be revolutionising the law, but its misuse could wreck cases and careers, warns Clare Arthurs of Penningtons Manches Cooper in this week's NLJ
back-to-top-scroll