THREE NEW HIGH COURT CASES AND MITCHELL: A SUMMARY
Such is the all embracing nature of the Mitchell decision that decisions are coming through on a daily basis. There were two cases that referred to Mitchell on Lawtel this morning (11th March 2014) and another which was an application to strike out for non-compliance. I will deal with all of these cases in more detail when the transcripts are available.
MITCHELL AND AMENDING PLEADINGS
In Dany Lions Ltd -v- Bristol Cars Ltd (QBD, Andrews J, 05/03/2014) the defendant applied to amend the defence two days prior to trial. The court held that the burden on a party applying for a late amendment was a heavy one. The matter had also to be considered in the light of the Mitchell decision. The proposed amended defence was deficient in any event. This, along with the lateness of the application, meant it was refused.
See also the discussion on Mitchell and pleadings in the post on the Hague case
MITCHELL MENTIONED IN REFUSING PERMISSION TO APPEAL A BANKRUPTCY ORDER
Mitchell was also mentioned in the case of Emakpose-Patrick -v- Lowell Portfolio Ltd (Ch D, Morgan J, 07/03/2014) where the applicant sought an application for an extension of time to appeal a bankruptcy order. The judge held that Mitchell applied and the delay and costs of the case were out of all proportion to the subject mater.
MITCHELL AND DISCLOSURE
Mitchell is not mentioned in the brief report but probably central to the arguments in Global Marine Drillships -v- William La Bella (Ch D Kerr QC, 07/03/2014). An application was made to strike out the claim due to non-compliance with a disclosure order. The court refused the application on the grounds that the burden of showing non-disclosure had not been discharged. It was a case of inept compliance and not deliberate compliance.