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
The Court of Appeal, in Michael Wilson & Partners (MWP) v Sinclair, has revoked a lower court’s order under the rarely invoked discretion afforded by Rule 3.1(7) and the Court of Appeal’s guidelines in Tibbles.
It justified this revocation on the ‘truly exceptional’ circumstances of this case, namely the need for the Court of Appeal in Denton to ‘provide further guidance, restating the relevant principles’ within a few months of the decision in Mitchell, the application of which had ‘led to decisions that were manifestly unjust and disproportionate’.
The outcome of that fresh consideration was to make an order under Rule 3.9 granting relief from sanctions and lifting the stay, thereby allowing the appeal to proceed.
Parties who have suffered under the draconian and disproportionate application of Mitchell should, however, not assume they would be equally successful in any application to revoke such draconian orders. The Court of Appeal stressed the appellant’s promptness in applying under Rule 3.1(7) following the decision in Denton had been an important factor.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free by subscribing to our blog.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
Virginia specialises in general domestic and international commercial litigation, arbitration and alternative dispute resolution.
Virginia trained, qualified and practiced with Pinsent Masons before moving to Marriott Harrison where she continued in practice for a further seven years.
In practice, Virginia acted in a variety of general commercial disputes covering areas including intellectual property, fraud, defamation, misrepresentation, breach of contract, debt recovery, breach of restrictive covenants and company and shareholders’ disputes.
Virginia is Head of Dispute Resolution at Lexis®PSL and, when not focused on the strategic development and operational requirements of the Dispute Resolution module, her content work focuses on case management and evidence in civil litigation. She also regularly contributes to the LexisNexis Dispute Resolution Blog.
0330 161 1234