DO YOU NEED TO APPLY FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS OR AN EXTENSION OF TIME? ANOTHER KEY ISSUE PRACTITIONERS SHOULD BE CERTAIN ABOUT

January 5, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

There was an interesting debate on twitter on Friday evening about whether Mitchell was being cited too widely. It was reported that, in some cases district judges had rejected the argument that when parties were applying for extension of time this was a “Mitchell” type case. The judge but stated t...

Enjoying this post?

Become a Civil Litigation Brief member to read full articles and access all premium content.

Become a member

Already a member? Log in below

Tags: Civil Procedure Rules, CPR 3.9, Directions, Extensions of time, Relief from sanctions

7 Responses

Clive Thomas · January 6, 2014 at 23:34:42 · →

Can a party still rely on 2.11 CPR to agree a variation of the directions timetable with the other side?
1. gexall · January 6, 2014 at 23:44:40 · →
  
  I am looking at this, in detail, in a future post. The basic answer is sometimes, but not always, so be very careful.
Clive Thomas · January 7, 2014 at 09:50:35 · →

Thanks very much – I look forward to reading your post. Will it be something you deal with in the Webinar on 29th Jan?
gexall · January 7, 2014 at 10:59:30 · →

Clive. It will be dealt with in the Webinar.
FMR · February 24, 2014 at 14:30:06 · →

So if you need an extension of time, and there is no obvious sanction beyond the standard warning in the model directions, to which you refer above, all you need to do to avoid the troublesome business of arguing rule 3.9 is issue an application to extend time before the deadline for doing something has expired and then make sure you do whatever it is you were ordered to do before your application is heard (and of course within the leisurely extension you sought for yourself): highly likely given the backlog of applications post-Mitchell? That way you will likely never have to address the nasty old business of rule 3.9? I am getting dim and distant deja-vu from before 1999. In fact, this is worse/easier than the position was pre-Woolf, because in the good (bad?) old days pre-Woolf, there was a special list for time summonses, so that applications for time were dealt with swiftly. As far as I know, there is no such list now.