header-logo header-logo

06 March 2015 / Thomas Elias , Daniel Lightman KC
Issue: 7643 / Categories: Features , Procedure & practice
printer mail-detail

Why procedure matters

nlj_7643_lightmanelias

Daniel Lightman & Thomas Elias report on a Saudi “Royal Protocol” & three-dimensional justice

The Supreme Court rarely intervenes in procedural matters. However, in HRH Prince Abdulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Ltd [2014] UKSC 64, [2014] All ER (D) 278 (Nov) the Supreme Court, while endorsing its policy of self-restraint in the supervision of the administration of civil procedure, nonetheless went on to address a current hot topic in civil litigation following the recent Jackson reforms: where a party who has failed to comply with an unless order applies for relief from sanctions, should the court be inclined to leniency where that party has a strong case on the ultimate merits of the proceedings?

Giving the judgment of four of the five Supreme Court judges (Lord Clarke dissented), Lord Neuberger held that generally the strength of a party’s case on the merits is irrelevant in the context of case management decisions (including applications for relief from sanctions), but that there may be an exception where

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

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Thackray Williams—Lucy Zhu

Dual-qualified partner joins as head of commercial property department

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Morgan Lewis—David A. McManus

Firm announces appointment of next chair

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Burges Salmon—Rebecca Wilsker

Director joins corporate team from the US

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll