Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers

HISTORIC AGREEMENTS TO EXTEND TIME: WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE APPROACH OF THE COURT? CAROLINE MAEVE MEEHAN -v- JOSEPH MANLEY & CHURCHILL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

February 10, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Personal Injury, Relief from sanctions, Witness statements

The decision in Lloyd that it was not open to the parties to agree to extend time can cause a problem in relation to cases where service of documents has taken place late by agreement. This was a common occurrence in litigation. I am grateful to Colin Ettinger of Irwin Mitchell for providing me wit...

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, Mitchell, Witness statement

2 Responses

litigationPSL · February 11, 2014 at 20:30:15 · →

do we have the full judgment anywhere? thanks?
gexall · February 11, 2014 at 20:49:37 · →

Yes its under the Mitchell Case Watch section in the blog.