header-logo header-logo

The same difference?

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

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

FOIL—Bridget Tatham

Forum of Insurance Lawyers elects president for 2026

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Gibson Dunn—Robbie Sinclair

Partner joinslabour and employment practice in London

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

NEWS
Cryptocurrency is reshaping financial remedy cases, warns Robert Webster of Maguire Family Law in NLJ this week. Digital assets—concealable, volatile and hard to trace—are fuelling suspicions of hidden wealth, yet Form E still lacks a section for crypto-disclosure
NLJ columnist Stephen Gold surveys a flurry of procedural reforms in his latest 'Civil way' column
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
back-to-top-scroll