header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us

Time to comply

© Copyright LexisNexis 2025. All Rights Reserved.
19 December 2016 / Julia Messervy-Whiting , Sofia Lobosco
Issue: 7728 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice , Costs , Insurance / reinsurance , CPR
printer mail-detail

Julia Messervy-Whiting & Sofia Lobosco outline the importance of compliance with court orders, directions and CPR
    • An analysis of Eaglesham v MOD; Clearway Drainage Systems v Miles Smith; and UPL Europe Ltd v Agchemaccess Chemicals Ltd and others reinforcing the importance of compliance.

    In recent months, the importance of compliance with court orders, directions and CPR has again been reinforced.

    CPR “requires” all parties to adhere to the overriding objective to enable the courts to deal with all cases “expeditiously and fairly”. This involves observing case management provisions and directions.

    In a November 2016 decision (Eaglesham v MOD [2016] EWHC 3011 (QB)) this principle was illustrated in relation to “unless” orders.

    Application

    The defendant made application to extend time for compliance with an unless order and for relief from sanctions. The direction stated: “Unless the defendant complies with para 1 [disclosure of specified documents] in full the defence shall be

    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

    Read All
    Sponsored by
    Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

    Pillsbury—Peter O’Hare

    Partner hire bolstersprivate capital and global aviation finance offering

    Morae—Carla Mendy

    Morae—Carla Mendy

    Digital and business solutions firm appoints chief operating officer

    Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

    Twenty Essex—Clementine Makower & Stephen Du

    Set welcomes two experienced juniors as new tenants

    NEWS
    Read All
    NLJ this week: Alarm bells over Mazur
    The High Court’s decision in Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys has thrown the careers of experienced CILEX litigators into jeopardy, warns Fred Philpott of Gough Square Chambers in NLJ this week
    NLJ this week: Jury trial & a constitutional illusion
    Sir Brian Leveson’s claim that there is ‘no right to jury trial’ erects a constitutional straw man, argues Professor Graham Zellick KC in NLJ this week. He argues that Leveson dismantles a position almost no-one truly holds, and thereby obscures the deeper issue: the jury’s place within the UK’s constitutional tradition
    NLJ this week: The rise—and risks—of going private
    Why have private prosecutions surged despite limited data? Niall Hearty of Rahman Ravelli explores their rise in this week's NLJ 
    NLJ this week: Human rights disputes push courts to redefine their role
    The public law team at Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer surveys significant recent human rights and judicial review rulings in this week's NLJ
    NLJ this week: Debarment orders—shortcut or minefield?
    In this week's NLJ, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley examines how debarring orders, while attractive to claimants seeking swift resolution, can complicate trials—most notably in fraud cases requiring ‘particularly cogent’ proof
    Copyright © 2025 LexisNexis
    back-to-top-scroll