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
Printer Friendly Version
Back tracking from the position in Mitchell gathers pace as the trivial test is removed with something more substantive. This was the case in Long v Value Properties and Ocean Trade  EWHC 2981 (Ch) where Barling J allowed an appeal against the imposition of sanctions. In doing so, he held that as well as granting relief from sanctions under the test to be applied in Denton, he would also have granted such relief under the guidelines in Mitchell.
In this case the claimant had commenced detailed assessment proceedings but had not provided the other information required under CPR PD 47, para 32.7 at the time of commencement. The difficulty for practitioners, as identified in the appeal, is that no time limit is set out in the practice direction as to when such additional information should be provided. In this case, where the claimant had entered into CFAs with both their solicitors and counsel, the other information required was a statement of reasons for the percentage increase or a copy of the risk assessment prepared. Rather than simply asking for the information, the defendants submitted their points of dispute and, at the same time, alleged non-compliance by the claimant with CPR PD 47, para 32.7 due to the fact the additional information had not been provided. In this blog, I consider two of the issues in this case which are of interest to practitioners. Other issues on were also considered by Barling J as to the construction of CPR provisions dealing with sanctions to be imposed.
If serving the further information after the date of commencement of the detailed assessment proceedings constituted a breach of the rules, should such a breach be considered to be ‘trivial’ such that relief from sanctions should be granted under CPR 3.9. This was the issues before the court when first determine as the principles in Mitchell applied, Denton having yet to be decided.
Now, for the purpose of the appeal, Barling J looked not only at the position under Mitchell but also that under Denton, and, in doing so, ended up with the same result.
Since the Court of Appeal decision in Denton, a court is required to apply a three stage test to determine whether to exercise its discretion to provide relief from sanctions. The first stage is to determine whether the breach was 'serious' or 'significant'.*
Gone therefore is the benchmark of 'triviality'. If the breach was neither serious nor significant, relief should be granted.
In this case, the issue was whether a delay of three weeks in the provision of information, when taking into account the tight timetable for detailed assessment, was serious or significant. Barling J took the view that the breach could not be considered in isolation but rather that it had to be considered in the context of the surrounding circumstances:
Having regard to these points, Barling J regarded the breach as insignificant and therefore trivial applying the guidance under Mitchell, the authority in place at the time of the first instance decision. He also concluded that the breach was neither serious nor significant applying the test in Denton, as was applicable to the appeal before him. While the SCCO judge's instinct was to consider the breach to be trivial, Barling J identified that he had erred by finding this was not the case because he had failed to give significant weight to the circumstances surrounding the breach or the lack of significant prejudice to any of the parties.
Barling J also considered that the SCCO judge had erred by concluding that as the breach was not trivial and there was no good reason for it, relief from sanctions was not available; an error identified by the majority in the Court of Appeal decision in Denton. What he should have done was to consider whether not giving relief was appropriate taking into account 'all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application'.
Barling J also addressed the issue of opportunistic and non co-operative conduct by the defendants at para  where he said 'It is evident that in so far as there has been unnecessary cost, delay and use of the court's finite resources in hearing the application for relief from sanctions and this appeal, this is the result of what in my view was the unreasonable, opportunistic and non-cooperative approach of the defendants to the claimant's unfortunate oversight.'
Barling J considered that this a clear example of defendants seeking to take advantage of minor breaches under the CPR. This type of conduct proliferated following the Court of Appeal decision in Mitchell and was expressly ‘condemned’ by the Court of Appeal in Denton. There, the Court of Appeal emphasised its distaste at the opportunism which had grown up. It considered that such opportunism should be more readily penalised by the courts moving forward.
The key for practitioners, faced with a breach of the CPR by the other side, is to have regard to the overriding objective under the CPR which includes co-operation between the parties to progress the matter. Had the defendants approached the matter sensibly, Barling J considered that the matter could have been completely resolved very quickly instead of it being subject to a court hearing and further appeal which both resulted in significantly delaying the resolution of the detailed assessment proceedings. Practitioners must remember that they have a duty to the court when considering what steps to advise their clients to take and refusing to agree extensions of time or unreasonably opposing relief from sanctions applications should result in heavy costs sanctions being imposed.
*Subscribers to LexisPSL DR can obtain detailed information on this test, see Practice Note: Relief from sanctions - the courts' approach.
Click here for a one week free trial of LexisPSL
0330 161 1234