THE AFTERMATH FROM MITCHELL: THIS IS GETTING REALLY, REALLY, SERIOUS
I have been in discussions today with one barrister who estimates that, in his own practice alone, he has already represented claimants where a total of £1 million pounds of damages have been lost as a result of a decision not to give relief from sanctions. If this is in any way typical then the consequences nationwide must be enormous. In many cases the parties may not yet appreciate that they require relief from sanctions.
SOMETHING MUST BE DONE: “SAFETY FIRST” LITIGATION
It is clear that something needs to be done, and quickly. Every prudent litigator (claimant and defendant) must check their files now. Any problems with time periods must lead to immediate action, or immediate applications to the court.
I am starting a series of posts on practical ways of litigating after Mitchell “Surviving Mitchell”. This will be a regular series of posts setting out steps that litigators can take to reduce risk in the “new regime”.
IN THE MEANTIME
The task is a large one (and I welcome comments and contributions) and will be done as a series. In the interim period most, if not all, of the points made in the “Surviving Jackson” post at http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/litigation-after-jackson-a-10-point-survival-guide/ remains relevant.
There are numerous posts in relation to the Mitchell decision on this blog.
- The Mitchell criteria for relief from sanctions is discussed in detail at http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/28/the-mitchell-criteria-for-relief-from-sanctions-a-detailed-examination/
- The Mitchell decision is summarised athttp://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/11/27/mitchell-key-points-of-judgment/
For a consideration of the advantages of looking Look in particular at http://civillitigationbrief.wordpress.com/2013/06/26/extensions-of-time-after-jackson-safety-first/