Rely on the most comprehensive, up-to-date legal content designed and curated by lawyers for lawyers
Work faster and smarter to improve your drafting productivity without increasing risk
Accelerate the creation and use of high quality and trusted legal documents and forms
Streamline how you manage your legal business with proven tools and processes
Manage risk and compliance in your organisation to reduce your risk profile
Stay up to date and informed with insights from our trusted experts, news and information sources
Access the best content in the industry, effortlessly — confident that your news is trustworthy and up to date.
With over 30 practice areas, we have all bases covered. Find out how we can help
Our trusted tax intelligence solutions, highly-regarded exam training and education materials help guide and tutor Tax professionals
Regulatory, business information and analytics solutions that help professionals make better decisions
A leading provider of software platforms for professional services firms
In-depth analysis, commentary and practical information to help you protect your business
LexisNexis Blogs shed light on topics affecting the legal profession and the issues you're facing
Legal professionals trust us to help navigate change. Find out how we help ensure they exceed expectations
Lex Chat is a LexisNexis current affairs podcast sharing insights on topics for the legal profession
Printer Friendly Version
This week has seen the Court of Appeal, in a line up including the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justice Jackson, consider three appeals dealing with the fall out from the previous Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell v NGN heard last year. Judgment has been reserved. In this report we look at the three decisions and highlight some of the issues discussed in the hearings.
Court of Appeal
Monday and Tuesday this week saw a packed Court of Appeal as it heard three appeals against judgments seeking to apply the guidance set out last year in Mitchell. To some commentators and many practitioners that guidance has resulted in a draconian approach to the new test for relief from sanctions in CPR 3.9 which was introduced in April 2013 as part of the extensive Jackson reforms aimed at costs reduction in civil litigation. Other criticisms are the inconsistency of approach by the courts and the decrease in co-operation between parties when sanctions are looming on the horizon.
The legal world is placing a great degree of expectation on these hearing with:
Some positives can be seen for the hearings:
Whilst we will need to see the judgments, the indications from the court room would suggest that the Court of Appeal will take the opportunity to clarify the position in relation to relief from sanctions. Issues debated during the hearing included:
Keeping up to date
In relation to monitoring the progress of the appeals, at LexisNexis we have a court reporting team who have actively been doing this for us. As with the decision in Mitchell, as soon as the Court of Appeal judgment is available, we will provide details through our twitter account and blog and will of course analyse the decision and set out the practical implications in a report in LexisPSL DR.
You can follow us on Twitter at @LexisUK_DR.
* We sent subscribers our Practice Note on Buffer Agreements in our May newsletter (see also this post). If you’d like to receive this, ensure you've signed up in the box on the right but you can also leave your email address in the comments (we will pick it up prior to publishing the comment, so it won’t be made public, and we will email you the full analysis)
0330 161 1234