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
Many practitioners, especially those dealing clients that have a personal interest in a dispute, will know that one of the most difficult issues for such clients is dealing with the stress that comes from being involved in court proceedings. Whilst a certain amount of stress is to be expected what about the stress that comes from delays in the proceedings? With the expectation of more litigants in person will we see the courts looking not looking just at case and costs management issues when dealing with delays but factoring in the stress upon those parties who have not contributed to the delay?
In French v Savelieva  EWHC 2537 (Ch), Purle J did exactly that when he granted permission to appeal and granted the appeal so preventing the defendant from obtaining expert evidence. In doing so, he placed considerable weight on the stress to the claimants caused by the delay in obtaining the initial permission to obtain such evidence. Purle J considered that dealing with such evidence in this case would result in the prolonging proceedings which the claimants, on the facts, must have thought had come to an end. The stress resulting from this would not be compensated for by costs orders.
Is this a one off? Is the consideration of stress caused likely to be limited to the types of claims the court was dealing with in this case i.e. an adjudication through Her Majesty's Land Registry? Could we see the courts taking more account of the stress to parties caused by delays? If so how would courts be able to reconcile this approach with the right to justice – when is a delay too long?
Have you encountered the court taking into account the stress on parties when involved in adjudications or court proceedings? If so, please leave us a comment below.
0330 161 1234