- Court of Appeal—upholds 'robust decision' of Master McCloud in the Mitchell case (Mitchell v NGN)
- Practical implications
- Do the new provisions apply to cases under the costs budgeting pilot schemes—application by analogy
- Is application by analogy in accordance with the overriding objective?
- Appeal or relief from sanctions application. Which is the appropriate one to use?
- How should CPR 3.14 by construed?
- General observations provided in relation to CPR 3.9
- Guidelines for seeking relief from sanctions
- Relief under CPR 3.9
- Court details
DR analysis: the Court of Appeal has today handed down the long awaited Court of Appeal judgment addressing the Jackson Reforms since they were implemented on 1 April this year. In dismissing the appeal, it concluded that it hoped the decision would send out a clear message to practitioners that they would ‘become more efficient and will routinely comply with rules, practice directions and orders’. The aim is to ensure that expensive satellite litigation becomes a thing of the past. The Court of Appeal has also taken the opportunity to set firm guidelines for those subject to the costs budgeting regime and has also provided some guidance in relation to the practical impact of the far reaching changes which were made to CPR 3.9.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial