header-logo header-logo

21 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Procedure

Burt v Christie [2014] All ER (D) 86 (Feb)

It was established law that the expectation was that the sanction in CPR 3.14 would usually apply unless: (i) the breach was trivial; or (ii) there was good reason for it.  While the court had power to grant relief, the expectation was that, unless (i) or (ii) was satisfied, the two factors mentioned in the rule would usually trump other circumstances. That in determining otherwise under CPR 3.14, the court was not entertaining an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 as such but that the principles to be applied were likely to be the same. 

Leaving matters to the last minute was inconsistent with conducting litigation efficiently and the thrust of the new overriding objective of dealing with litigation justly and at proportionate cost. Early preparation was much more likely to lead to a narrowing of issues between the parties or even agreement of budgets, saving time at the first hearing, thereby freeing up court time to be allocated to other matters.

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

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Ogier—Martin Livingston

Martin Livingston joins Ogier in Cayman to strengthen regulatory support

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan—47 promotions

Blake Morgan announces 47 summer promotions across UK offices

NEWS
Consultant-led law firms should prepare for closer regulatory attention as oversight evolves
Artificial intelligence may draft workplace grievances, but employers cannot treat them any differently from conventional complaints
From dishonest claimants to judicial promotions and procedural skirmishes, the latest legal developments offer plenty for litigators to digest
Fresh guidance is set to influence how courts decide whether hearings take place online or in person
County Court judges remain divided over whether landlords can lawfully force entry to carry out essential safety inspections after tenants ignore access injunctions
back-to-top-scroll