FAILING TO SIGN STATEMENT OF TRUTH DOES NOT MEAN COSTS BUDGET WAS FILED OUT OF TIME: HIGH COURT DECISION

February 14, 2014 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Costs budgeting, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

It has to be recognised that the decision in Mitchell means, inevitably, that parties will take issue with minor breaches. Indeed it may be negligent for them not do so. In The Governor and Company of the Bank of Ireland -v- Phillip Rank Partnership [2014] EWHC 284 (TCC) Mr Justice Stuart-Smith con...

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, costs, CPR 3.9, Mitchell

2 Responses

baser akoodie · February 25, 2014 at 18:39:47 · →

What happens if no statement of truth is inserted.Will this make precedent h invalid.
gexall · February 25, 2014 at 21:02:42 · →

There are a few cases on this going through. Read the Bank of Ireland case. It may be an “irregularity”. It may one of the trivial matters that caught the court’s ire in the Summit case.