Landmark decision on “stricter” Jackson rules
The courts’ discretion to allow parties more time has been “radically amended” by the Jackson reforms, a judge has said in a landmark ruling on missed deadlines.
The decision will serve as a sharp reminder to civil litigation lawyers that a tougher regime is now in force.
Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart, refusing to grant a claimant a time extension, said a “stricter approach...must now be taken by the courts towards those who fail to comply with rules following the new changes to the Civil Procedure Rules”.
Prior to the introduction of the new rules on 1 April 2013, he said, the courts used to consider nine factors and take account of all the circumstances when deciding whether to extend time.
The case, Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture & Others [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC) involved a dispute over a property development in Northamptonshire. Edwards-Stuart J is the first judge to interpret the new provisions governing relief from sanction under r 3.9.
Venulum first became aware of its potential loss in 2007 after a mistake was discovered concerning the supporting pillars of an underground car park. However, it waited five years before instructing solicitors, and a further year passed before proceedings were issued, just before the expiry of the limitation period. Venulum then waited another four months before serving the proceedings on the defendants, and in doing so wrongly calculated that it had a further 14 days in which to serve its particulars of claim. It then had to apply for a time extension.
Two of the 13 defendants—the Miller defendants—opposed the application. The judge’s refusal to extend time ends Venulum’s claim against the Miller defendants since a fresh action would now be statute-barred but its action against the other 11 defendants continues.
Edward Lewis, partner at Weightmans LLP, who advised the Miller defendants, said the judgment was “extremely important in highlighting the tightening of standards and the approach that is to be expected of the courts under the new CPR”.
“This ruling offers a stark reminder to all practitioners that we are operating in the context of a much altered litigation landscape. It is a great coup for Weightmans.”
