header-logo header-logo

07 August 2015
Issue: 7664 / Categories: Case law , Law digest , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair and others [2015] EWCA Civ 774, [2015] All ER (D) 273 (Jul)

When the claimant had failed to make a payment on account of costs on time, its appeal was stayed. When it applied to have the stay lifted, the judge treated it as an application for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9, refused the application and struck out the appeal following the guidance in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited. The claimant applied to the court for reconsideration under CPR 3.1(7) after judgment had been given in Denton and others v TH White Ltd and another. The Court of Appeal, Civil Division, allowed the application and set aside the order. The judge had made his decision based on the principles laid down in Mitchell , but that had been a mistaken approach. Following Denton , relief from sanction would be granted.

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll