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

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Foot Anstey—Jasmine Olomolaiye

Investigations and corporate crime expert joins as partner

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Fieldfisher—Mark Shaw

Veteran funds specialist joins investment funds team

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Taylor Wessing—Stephen Whitfield

Firm enhances competition practice with London partner hire

NEWS
Could an online LLM in Commercial and Technology Law expand your career options?
The controversial Courts and Tribunals Bill has passed its second reading by 304 votes to 203, despite concerted opposition from the legal profession
The presumption of parental involvement is to be abolished, the Lord Chancellor David Lammy has confirmed
A highly experienced chartered legal executive has been prevented from representing her client in financial remedies proceedings, in a case that highlights the continued fallout from Mazur
Plans to commandeer 50%-75% of the interest on lawyers’ client accounts to fund the justice system overlook the cost and administrative burden of this on small and medium law firms, CILEX has warned
back-to-top-scroll