Table of contents
- Practical implications
- Facts
- First instance—relief from sanctions granted
- Court of Appeal—relief from sanctions refused
- Court details
Article summary
DR analysis: the Court of Appeal has refused relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 just weeks after the decision in Mitchell, where relief was also refused. The difference between the two cases is seen in that in Mitchell a robust approach taken to the application of CPR 3.9 was upheld on the basis that it was fair, whilst in this decision the Court of Appeal refused to uphold a decision to grant relief from sanctions on the basis that the robust approach, which the courts need to take when applying CPR 3.9, had not been implemented.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial