header-logo header-logo

16 May 2014 / Michael Zander KC
Issue: 7606 / Categories: Opinion
printer mail-detail

A step too far

web_zander

Michael Zander QC does not support the Court of Appeal’s decision in Mitchell

The decision in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, given by Lord Dyson MR for a unanimous Court of Appeal, has been described as the most important civil procedure decision of the past 40 years. As someone who has over the years taken some part in public debate about civil procedure, I have to say that I do not support the decision.

A tougher approach

A few days before the Jackson reforms went live on 1 April 2013, Lord Dyson gave the 18th in the series of Jackson Implementation Lectures. In his lecture Lord Dyson explained why it had become necessary to adopt a tougher approach to implementation of the CPR. The relationship between justice and procedure had changed. The justice system was now to be concerned with more than the instant case. “It is a system that has to command public confidence through securing for the majority, many of whom have limited resources, access to a system

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