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
The Court of Appeal has unanimously agreed that all three ‘Mitchell appeals’ should be allowed.
In doing so, it found that, although the Mitchell decision ought not to be criticised, it had led to some confusion and criticism. As such, some clarification and amplification on the interpretation and application of Rule 3.9 was required.
It was hoped this judgment would increase compliance and reduce the need for satellite litigation on the issue of relief from sanctions. The judgment introduces a three-stage test to be applied by courts determining RFS applications and suggests, among other things, 'heavy costs' penalties for respondents who unreasonably object to an application for relief.
Denton v White & others; Decadent Vapours Limited v Bevan & others; Utilise TDS Limited v Cranstoun Davies & others  All ER (D) 53 (July);  EWCA Civ 906
In allowing each of the appeals, the appeal judges found the first instance judges had incorrectly applied the principles set out in CPR 3.9 and/or the Court of Appeal's decision in Mitchell.
The Court of Appeal held it would be useful for courts, in determining relief applications, to apply a 'three-stage' test, namely:
Other principles and practical implications seemingly arising from this decision include:
For the Court of Appeal's findings in relation to each of the appeals, see:
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judges: Master of the Rolls, Lord Justice Jackson and Lord Justice Vos
Date of judgment: 4 July 2014
First published on Lexis®PSL Dispute Resolution. Click here for a free one week trial of Lexis®PSL
0330 161 1234