JEREMY FORD The Rise & Fall of “Mitchell” Chambers of Andrew Ritchie QC 9 Gough Square (0207 832 0500)

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
REMEDIES FOR BREACH OF CONTRACT.
Advertisements

The First-tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) Nicholas Kissen Thomas Frith Islington Leaseholders Association 12 th June 2013.
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims
Civil Proceedings Criminal Proceedings.
© Weightmans LLP Civil Litigation Today……Jackson, Mitchell et al A presentation for the Manchester Claims Association Key contact: Michael Green Partner.
Costs BUDGETING - The COURT’S TAKE ON IT
Jackson, Mitchell and the impact on Professional Indemnity Insurers Manchester Claims Association Civil Litigation Today…Jackson, Mitchell et al The view.
The Brussels II Regulation The jurisdiction of courts.
Q UINCY COLLEGE Paralegal Studies Program Paralegal Studies Program Litigation and Procedure Discovery: Overview and Interrogatories Litigation and Procedure.
1 NSW Work Health & Safety Act Session 3 WHS Act.
Mediation and the Trial Civil Procedure Reforms practice direction Law Society of the Northern Territory Steve Walsh QC Alistair Wyvill SC.
The Roles of Judge and Jury Court controls legal rulings in the trial Court controls legal rulings in the trial Jury decides factual issues Jury decides.
Motion to Compel A party is entitled to secure discovery from another party without court intervention.
© Weightmans LLP Civil Litigation Today…….Jackson, Mitchell et al A presentation for the Manchester Claims Association – Part 2 Stewart Simpson Knowledge.
Constitutional Restrictions on Choice of Law. Home Ins. Co. v Dick (US 1930)
N ORTHERN M ARIANA I SLANDS R ULES FOR M ANDATORY A LTERNATIVE D ISPUTE R ESOLUTION.
CHAPTER 11 Variation, breach and termination of the contract of employment.
Powers and Functions of Administrative Agencies. Question - Net-Neutrality FTC Announced Final Regulations – Late February 2015 Imagine you are a member.
European payment order Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment.
Lecturer: Miljen Matijašević G10, room 6/I, Tue 15:30-16:30 Session 9, 12 Dec 2014.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board The Clarified ISAs, Audit Documentation, and SME Audit Considerations ISA Implementation Support Module.
International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board The Clarified ISAs, Audit Documentation, and SME Audit Considerations ISA Implementation Support Module.
European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims JUDr. Radka Chlebcová.
1 How will a case be conducted differently under the CJR? Tutorial Workshop through a case study Eric TM Cheung Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, HKU.
Appeals to the Upper Tribunal Against a Traffic Commissioner’s decision (Goods Vehicle Operator’s Licence) Jared Dunbar BSc, MA, LLB Associate, Dyne Solicitors.
Local Assessment of Code of Conduct Complaints. 2 Background  On 08 May 2008 – the local assessment of Code of Conduct complaints was implemented due.
Practice Direction 6 Revisited Damian Gordon Barrister at Law.
Public law governs:  relationships between individuals and the state/government; and  the structure, administration and operation of the state/government.
Post-Grant & Inter Partes Review Procedures Presented to AIPPI, Italy February 10, 2012 By Joerg-Uwe Szipl Griffin & Szipl, P.C.
Legal Update England and Wales: Relief from Sanctions for Non-Compliance with Procedural Directions Union Internationale des Avocats 58 th Congress - Florence.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2003 SECTION F CLASS 21 DISCOVERY III.
Rebecca Love Kourlis / Brittany K. T. Kauffman __________ Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System American Judges Association/American.
Supreme Court civil pre-trial procedures: an overview
Rule 45 – Or Why You Shouldn’t Panic When A Subpoena Comes In S. Mujeeb Shah-Khan, Esq. Senior Assistant City Attorney City of Charlotte – City Attorney’s.
Mon. Nov. 26. Work Product “Privilege” A witness, X, who is friendly to the D was interviewed by P’s attorney and a statement was drawn up Is there any.
Principles of International Commercial Arbitration Allen B. Green McKenna Long & Aldridge, LLP.
1 A decade of revisions at UNCITRAL Special Course 6 – James Castello Lecture 3 Arbitration Academy PA R I S SUMMER COURSES
COSTS MANAGEMENT AND COSTS BUDGETING SEMINAR By Phil & Melanie Bingham PJ Bingham & Co Monday 20 August 2012.
© 2007 Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP. All rights reserved. Developments in Tax Penalties: Help or Hinderence to Administribility? William McRae.
Where to next? Mitchell Part 2 Craig Budsworth. Andrew Mitchell MP v NGN Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1526 Karbhari & Karbhari v Ahmed Long v Value Properties.
Civil Procedure Allocation. Allocation Questionnaire Form N150 PD262.2 parties should co-operate in completing the allocation questionnaire - PD
1 A decade of revisions at UNCITRAL Special Course 6 – James Castello Lecture 5 Arbitration Academy PA R I S SUMMER COURSES
© Weightmans LLP Civil Litigation Today…….Jackson, Mitchell et al A presentation for the Manchester Claims Association – Part 1 Stewart Simpson Knowledge.
BVC Civil Procedure Interim Applications Interim Payments.
The Equality Act 2010 Catherine Casserley
1 English Legal System Civil court reforms. 2 Civil courts Civil reform Thermawear V Linton (1995) CA as per Lord Justice Henry, “…the adversarial system.
Civil Procedure Part 36 Allocation.
AMENDMENTS TO THE PROGRAM COMPLIANCE REVIEW GUIDE July 2006 IFTA Annual Business Meeting.
P.R.I.M.E. Finance Panel of Recognized International Market Experts in Finance The role of experts in complex financial cases: DIFC Court case study (Al.
Bath and North East Somerset Council Planning Enforcement Training Olwen Dutton Partner, Bevan Brittan.
CASE MANAGEMENT HOW TO TAKE CONTROL OF YOUR CASES 1 Lady Justice Hallett DBE and Dame Linda Dobbs DBE.
CIVIL PROCEDURE CLASS 22 Professor Fischer Columbus School of Law The Catholic University of America October 16, 2002.
CIVIL PROCEDURE FALL 2005 SECTIONS C & F CLASS 21 DISCOVERY II October 11, 2005.
American Government and Politics Today Chapter 15 The Courts.
AS Level Law Machinery of Justice Civil Process. AS Level Law What you need to know:  the staffing and jurisdiction of the civil courts.  the civil.
What is the court’s expectation of doctors? British Medical Association 17 November 2006.
ARBITRATION ACT. Challenge of arbitrator The appointment of an arbitrator may be challenged on the issues of – (i) impartiality, – (ii) independence,
Variation By Agreement: UCC Article 9 © Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP. All rights reserved.
Charles University – Law Faculty October 2012 © Peter Kolker 2012 Class III
Introduction to Civil Litigation
Catherine Casserley The Equality Act 2010 Catherine Casserley
SIMAD UNIVERSITY Keyd abdirahman salaad.
Overview of the Disclosure Working Group Reform Proposals
Hempsons – 21 June 2018 Andrew Daly, Partner
CCMC Hearings Ian Besford. CCMC Hearings Ian Besford.
Function of the International Court of Justice (ICJ):
Judicial Review Update Andrew Sharland QC
JR PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE: A MISCELLANY Christopher Knight
Presentation transcript:

JEREMY FORD The Rise & Fall of “Mitchell” Chambers of Andrew Ritchie QC 9 Gough Square ( )

AMENDMENTS TO CPR (1): On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction, or court order, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need- (a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and (b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders”

ETHOS / JUSTIFICATION Lord Dyson (18 th Implementation Lecture – March 2013) “The revisions to the overriding objective and to Rule 3.9, and particularly the fact that rule 3.9 now expressly refers back to the revised overriding objective, are intended to make clear that the relationship between justice and procedure has changed. It has changed not by transforming rules and rule compliance into trip wires. Nor has it changed it by turning the rules and rule compliance into the mistress rather than the handmaid of justice…doing justice in each set of proceedings is to ensure that proceedings are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. Justice is now only achievable through the proper application of the CPR consistent with the overriding objective.”

MITCHELL –v- NEWS GROUP Key Points: (1)New drafting of the CPR show efficient conduct of litigation at proportionate cost and the compliance with orders is of paramount importance (2)Begin by looking at the nature of the non-compliance with rule, if can be regarded as “trivial” relief will “usually” be granted provided application made promptly (No need to look at reasons here) (3)In non-compliance more than trivial  Burden on defaulting party to persuade the court to grant relief  Court will consider why default occurred  Good reason – relief likely to be granted

“TRIVIAL” How do you define trivial? (a) Guidance in Mitchell: (i)“insignificant failure to comply with an order” (ii) Eg. failure in form rather than substance or party has narrowly missed the deadline imposed by the order, but has otherwise fully complied with its terms (iii) In Mitchell, C was 6 days late – causing adjournment and substantial extra costs

GOOD REASON How do you define Good Reason? (a) Guidance in Mitchell: (i)Court will consider the reasons for the default– burden on party seeking relief (ii)If “good reason” for default court likely to decide relief should be granted (iii)Good Reason “document not filed at court was because solicitor suffered from a debilitating illness or involved in an accident” (iv)Later developments in the course of the litigation process are likely to be a good reason if they show that the period for compliance originally imposed was unreasonable, although the period seemed to be reasonable at the time and could not realistically have been the subject of an appeal (v)Overlooking a deadline due to overwork or otherwise unlikely to be “good reason” (vi)Likely to arise from circumstances outside the control of the party in default

Mitchell Aftermath “COMPLY OR DIE”

MITCHELL - Judicial Fight back Summit Navigation Ltd –v- Generali Romania [2014] EWHC 398 (1) C failed to provide a suitable bond by 5 th Dec 2013 – bond offered for £100,000 on 28 th November to include previous bond of £25,000 rather than a single bond of £125,000. D refused such a bond. (2)Single bond needed to be issued by broker – eventually available on morning of 6 th December – D refused to accept it – case stayed (3)Stay was a sanction “any consequence adverse to the party to whom it applies” but a stay does not operate as a sanction in the ordinary sense because it does not prevent the party from pursuing the claim (4)It does not follow that all sanctions are equal and are to be treated as equivalent to one another for the purposes of CPR 3.9 – is a distinction between application to lift a stay and breach of an unless order that strikes out a claim. Thus, considerations of CPR 3.9 do not carry the same weight in such a case.

NOT ALL SANCTIONS ARE CREATED EQUAL? Summit Navigation Ltd –v- Generali Romania [2014] EWHC 398 (5)Applying Mitchell – “trivial”; minor and not material (6)Was good reason – on the evidence before the Court (7)“Even if not trivial or good reason”, still just to grant relief: (a)no impact on efficient conduct of the litigation nor impact on wider litigants (no other hearing required as result of default – i.e. no abortive hearing); and (b)Enforcement of compliance – in this case = trip wire or mistress to rules (8)Civil Justice Council on 21/02/14, Jackson LJ: “Nevertheless parties should not be allowed to exploit trivial or insignificant breaches by their opponents, as Laggatt J stated in “Summit…”

Court of Appeal CHARTWELL –v- (1) FERGIES (2) LEHRER [2014] EWCA Civ 506 – Davis LJ (1)Case concerned failure to file witness statement in compliance (2)Order for witness evidence by 22/11/13 (a)Arguments about disclosure from D but no application by C (b)Neither party served witness evidence in time (c)Globe J found not trivial breach and no good reason but, given that both parties in default and by not granting relief action would end – allowed relief (no additional costs / trial date retained) (d)CoA “all the circumstances of the case” entitled judge to depart from clear expectation that sanction applied – would usually trump other circumstances.

Denton / Decadent / Utilise “Judgment in Mitchell has been misunderstood and misapplied” “Guidance in Mitchell remains substantially sound”

Denton / Decadent / Utilise NEW THREE STAGE FORMULA (1) Seriousness or significance of failure to comply (2)The reasons for the default (3)“all the circumstances of the case”

Denton / Decadent / Utilise NEW THREE STAGE FORMULA (1) The death of Trivial:  consider solely the breach in question  if breach neither serious or significant, court unlikely to need stage 2 or 3  does it have an effect of the efficient running of the litigation  Court considered a test of immateriality “neither imperils future hearing dates nor otherwise disrupts the conduct of litigation (in the broader sense)”

Denton / Decadent / Utilise NEW THREE STAGE FORMULA (2) Reasons for the failure or default – “Good Reason”:  no list of examples given although examples given in Mitchell specifically referred to:  document not filed at court – debilitating illness  later developments in the course of litigation  mere overlooking deadline / overworked???  “no more than examples”

Denton / Decadent / Utilise NEW THREE STAGE FORMULA (3)No automatic failure – consider all the circumstances: (a)If is serious or significant breach without good reason “all the circumstances to deal with the case justly” (b) 3.9(1) (a) & (b) (Proportionate & compliance) no longer of paramount importance – “particular importance” Although there is clearly a difference within CoA on this

Denton / Decadent / Utilise All the circumstance of the case: (a)particular weight given to efficient conduct at proportionate cost and enforcement/compliance (b)Need to take into account nature of breach (c)Reasons for the breach “Where good reason for a serious or significant breach, relief likely to be granted. Where the breach is not serious or significant, relief is also likely to be granted” (d)Also all other circumstances – including promptness of application & previous compliance/non-compliance

VARYING ORDER CPR 2.11 / 3.8 (1)Witness Statements / Experts Reports (a)failure to serve on time requires the Court’s permission (b)This is a sanction – case law pre-dates Mitchell but never been an issue because old version CPR 3.9 / prejudice (c)Pursuant to old CPR 3.8(3) the parties cannot agree to extend time: “Where a rule, practice direction or court order: (a) requires a party to do something within a specified time; and (b) specifies the consequences of failure to comply, the time for doing the act in question may not be extended by agreement between the parties.

VARYING ORDER (2)Witness Statements / Experts Reports  The Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014 come into force on the 5th June 2014.Civil Procedure (Amendment No 5) Rules 2014  WHAT THE RULES SAY  "Amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules 1998  3. In rule 3.8— (a) in paragraph (3)(b), after “agreement between the parties” insert “except as provided in paragraph (4)”; (b) after paragraph (3) insert— “(4) In the circumstances referred to in paragraph (3) and unless the court orders otherwise, the time for doing the act in question may be extended by prior written agreement of the parties for up to a maximum of 28 days, provided always that any such extension does not put at risk any hearing date.” NOTE:  The rules refer to "prior" written agreement. It does not appear that a "subsequent" agreement can be made.  It has to be a "written" agreement

JEREMY FORD The Rise & Fall of “Mitchell” Chambers of Andrew Ritchie QC 9 Gough Square ( )