header-logo header-logo

21 February 2014
Issue: 7595 / Categories: Case law , Law digest
printer mail-detail

Procedure

Burt v Christie [2014] All ER (D) 86 (Feb)

It was established law that the expectation was that the sanction in CPR 3.14 would usually apply unless: (i) the breach was trivial; or (ii) there was good reason for it.  While the court had power to grant relief, the expectation was that, unless (i) or (ii) was satisfied, the two factors mentioned in the rule would usually trump other circumstances. That in determining otherwise under CPR 3.14, the court was not entertaining an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 as such but that the principles to be applied were likely to be the same. 

Leaving matters to the last minute was inconsistent with conducting litigation efficiently and the thrust of the new overriding objective of dealing with litigation justly and at proportionate cost. Early preparation was much more likely to lead to a narrowing of issues between the parties or even agreement of budgets, saving time at the first hearing, thereby freeing up court time to be allocated to other matters.

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