header-logo header-logo

29 November 2013 / Bernard Pressman
Issue: 7586 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

The same difference?

web_pressman

Bernard Pressman analyses the “new” approach of the courts to applications for relief from sanctions

In April this year, a new set of rules for relief from sanctions applications came into force. The old CPR 3.9(1) checklist had been scrapped and replaced with a new obligation on the court: to consider 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 Rules, Practice Directions and orders.

A daunting hurdle

On the face of it, a rather daunting hurdle for an applicant seeking relief. Indeed, there have already been a few cases where the applicants were given short thrift. In Fred Perry Holdings Ltd v Brands Plaza Trading Ltd [2012] EWCA Civ 224, [2012] All ER (D) 77 (Jun) (where, even though the application was made long before April 2013, the applicant was unfortunate to come up before a bench that included Jackson LJ) Lewison LJ referred to

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

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield—Tom McLaughlin

Boodle Hatfield welcomes new employment partner, Tom McLaughlin

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

Arc Pensions Law—Victoria Thompson-Hill, Jonathan Mason & Georgi Ivanov

National specialist pensions law firm strengthens team with three new appointments

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit—Christian Abletshauser

Jurit appoints Christian Abletshauser to lead family law practice

NEWS
Burges Salmon appoints Benn Richards to strengthen Contentious Insolvency offering
Jonathan Fisher KC’s wide-ranging fraud report contains worthwhile proposals, but turning them into workable reform will require money, capacity and political will
A Court of Appeal ruling shows that a failed nuisance claim may still leave a neighbour liable in negligence where foreseeable harm could readily have been avoided
The government has stepped back from a proposed early-release exclusion limited to unlawful act manslaughter, opting instead to exclude all manslaughter sentences
A High Court decision has clarified that a home may be unfit for human habitation not only where conditions endanger health or safety, but also where they seriously undermine comfort and convenience
back-to-top-scroll