4 Case management

Question 1

Relief from sanctions - CASE NAMES

Answer 1

Andrew Mitchell v News Group Newspapers

as interpreted by Denton v TH White

Question 2

RFS - test from case law

Answer 2

1. what is the nature of non-compliance? if breach neither serious nor significant ⇾ RFS granted
2. if neither serious/significant, why did it occur?
3. having considered reason, evaluate all circumstances of case - PARTICULAR WEIGHT TO 3.9(1)(a)-(b)

Question 3

RFS - step 1 further notes

Answer 3

• test: whether future hearing dates imperilled / conduct of litigation disrupted
• shouldn’t involve assessment of general conduct of parties

“the breach does not appear to be serious or significant. However, all cases turn on their facts and are subject to the court’s discretion so we should consider the other two factors considered in Denton. “

Question 4

RFS - step 2 further notes

Answer 4

• BOP on defaulting party to persuade court

- good reason = if due to circumstances outside of control of party in default

Question 5

Court’s approach to in-time applications

Answer 5

ITA should be dealt w. under principles of overriding objective ⇾ parties should be a blue to agree reasonable extensions which don’t cause hearing date to be varied / otherwise disrupt conduct of litigation

Question 6

Revision of budget?

Answer 6

party can revise budget of future costs ↑ or ↓, if significant developments warrant revisions 📗3E PD 7.6
IF appears to be a significant development and accordingly, the claimant should revise its budget and send it to the defendants’ solicitors for agreement. If not agreed, then the claimant should submit the amended budget to the court with the defendants’ objections.

Question 7

Failure to file budget? CASE + DECISION

Answer 7

CoA decision in Mitchell, under less draconian interpretation in Denton:
3.14 applies also where budget not filed within time prescribed by 📗3.13