Civil Litigation Today…….Jackson, Mitchell et al
A presentation for the Manchester Claims Association – Part 2
19th June 2014
Stewart Simpson
Knowledge Services Manager
Direct line: 0151 242 6892I
stewart.simpson@weightmans.com
© Weightmans LLP
The post-Mitchell world
▪ “A week is a long time in politics” – Harold Wilson
▪ 6 months is an eternity civil procedure
▪ How do we view Mitchell now?
!
© Weightmans LLP
The approach of the courts
▪
Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset [2013] EWCA Civ 1624
▪
Thevarajah v Riordan & Ors [2014] EWCA Civ 15
▪
Meehan v Manley, QBD, 29th January 2014 (unreported)
▪
Associated Electrical Industries v Alstom UK [2014] EWHC 430 (Comm)
▪
Chartwell Estate Agents v Fergies Properties [2014] EWCA Civ 506
▪
Hallam Estates v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661
© Weightmans LLP
What is trivial and what is not? (1)
▪
Adlington v ELS International Lawyers LLP [2014] 1 Costs L.R. 105
▪
Chambers v Buckinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust (unreported) 18
December 2013 (QBD)
▪
Burt v Linford Christie (unreported) 10 February 2014 (Birmingham
District Registry)
▪
Lakatamia Shipping v Su [2014] EWHC 275 (Comm)
▪
Bank of Ireland v Philip Pank Partnership [2014] EWHC 284 (TCC);
▪
Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Limited {2014] EWHC 1881 (TCC)
© Weightmans LLP
What is trivial and what is not? (2)
▪ Wain v Gloucestershire County Council & Others [2014] EWHC
1274(TCC)
▪ Azure East Midland v Manchester Airport [2014] EWHC 1644
(TCC)
▪ Barella v Zacharia T/A Seacrest Fish Bar, 21st February 2014,
Nottingham County Court
▪ Utilise TDS Ltd v Cranstoun Davies [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch)
▪ Warner v Merrett (unreported), 12th June 2014 (Merc)
© Weightmans LLP
What is a good reason?
▪ Newland Shipping and Forwarding v Toba Trading
[2014] EWHC 210 (Comm)
▪ Monde Petroleum v Westerzagros (unreported), 19th
May 2014 (QBD)
▪ Cranford Community College v Cranford College
Ltd (unreported) 16th June 2014 (IPEC)
© Weightmans LLP
Playing the tactical game
▪ Meehan v Manley, QBD, 29th January 2014
(unreported)
▪ Lakatamia Shipping v Su [2014] EWHC 796 (Comm)
▪ Summit Navigation v Generali [2014] EWHC 398
(Comm)
© Weightmans LLP
A serious side issue
▪ M A Lloyd & Sons v PPC International [2014] EWHC
41 (QB)
© Weightmans LLP
The cure?
▪ 73rd Update to the CPR as it amends CPR 3.8(3)
▪
(3) Where a rule, practice direction or court order –
(a) requires a party to do something within a specified time, and
(b) specifies the consequence of failure to comply,
the time for doing the act in question may not be extended by agreement
between the parties except as provided in paragraph (4).
▪
(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 such extension does not put at risk any hearing date.
© Weightmans LLP
A different approach?
▪
CPR 3.10
▪
Where there has been an error of procedure such as a failure to
comply with a rule or practice direction –
(a) the error does not invalidate any step taken in the proceedings
unless the court so orders; and
(b) the court may make an order to remedy the error.
▪ Integral Petroleum SA v SCU-Finanz AG [2014] EWHC 702
(Comm)
▪ Stoute v LTA Operations Ltd (t/a Lawn Tennis Association)
[2014] EWCA Civ 657
© Weightmans LLP
What next?
▪ The Court of Appeal – 16th – 17th June 2014
▪ 3 cases
▪ Utilise TDS Ltd v Cranstoun Davies [2014] EWHC
834 (Ch))
▪ Denton and others v TH White (unreported)
▪ Decadent Vapours v Bevan and others
(unreported) 18th February 2014, Cardiff (Ch)
▪ Decisions awaited
© Weightmans LLP