Compliance and relief from sanctions

The court's aim is to ensure that cases are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost, in accordance with the overriding objective in CPR 1, and it has wide powers to manage cases so as to achieve this. In furtherance of this objective, there are strict time limits for all stages of litigation, including filing and serving statements of case, giving disclosure, exchanging witness statements and expert reports etc. These deadlines are generally set out in the CPR, the relevant court guide for the court in which the claim is proceedings, and/or the court's case management directions orders. A failure to comply with these deadlines could result in sanctions being applied against the defaulting party, including cost consequences and/or that party's claim or defence being struck out. If a party is unable to comply with a deadline set out in the CPR or a court order, they should seek an extension of the time for compliance as soon as they realise it is needed.

For guidance on the meaning and importance of compliance with rules, practice directions and orders and tips for avoiding

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Dispute Resolution News

The English Court’s powers to issue injunctive reliefs aimed at preserving arbitral confidentiality. (A Corporation v Firm B and another)

Arbitration analysis: This case arises from the claimant’s application for interim injunctive reliefs (the ‘Application’) seeking, among others, to restrain the first defendant (‘Firm B’), including any of its branches from (i) acting for Corporation C in an ongoing arbitration against Corporation D (the ‘Second Arbitration’); and (ii) providing any confidential information from a previous arbitration between the Claimant and Corporation B (the ‘First Arbitration’), to Corporation C. In determining the Application, the Court considered the principles governing the grant of interim reliefs as established in American Cyanamid v Ethicon Ltd. The court also considered the boundaries of arbitral confidentiality by considering what documents and information the obligation of arbitral confidentiality covers, and the relevant exceptions to this obligation. The court concluded that the claimant was not entitled to the requested reliefs. After examining the claimant's allegations of breaches of arbitral confidentiality, the court found no breach, except for some limited settlement information from the First Arbitration. The court was also not persuaded that there was a real risk of confidential information being transferred between Firm B’s London and Asia offices. Consequently, the court decided that granting the injunction would significantly prejudice Firm B and Corporation C, while not granting it would cause no prejudice to the claimant and only minimal prejudice to Corporation D. Written by Dr. Ademola Bamgbose, solicitor advocate and senior associate at Hogan Lovells, London and IfeOluwa Alabi, associate at Hogan Lovells, London.

View Dispute Resolution by content type :

Popular documents