Article summary

This week, in Newland, the Commercial Court dismissed applications for rule 3.9 relief from sanctions and to revoke or vary a judgment under Rule 3.1(7); instead it acted ‘robustly’ applying both the Tibbles criteria and the finding in Mitchell. In another costs budgeting case, Pank, the TCC held that a party’s failure to include a full statement of truth on a costs budget constituted an irregularity rather than rendering the budget a nullity. In addition and of note, the Supreme Court in Cramaso LLP has also considered the question of to whom are duties of care owed when making pre-contractual representations. We continue to focus on providing a roundup of key news stories from the last week highlighting their practical implications as well as updating our Practice Notes to ensure you are kept up to date. Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.