RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: WHAT DOES “TRIVIAL” ACTUALLY MEAN? A LOOK AT THE CASES

April 25, 2014 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs budgeting, Expert evidence, Members Content, Relief from sanctions

If you attend one of the, numerous, “Jackson” and “Mitchell” conferences that abound at the moment you can easily make the lecturer sweat. Ask them to define “trivial”. Whether a breach is “trivial” or not is crucial to the way that the court approaches the issue of relief from sanctions. Here we...

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, Relief from sanctions

One Response

Simon Dewsbury · April 25, 2014 at 15:25:31 · →

A very helpful summary, but it starkly illustrates the lack of coherence or consistency in judicial decision making on this issue. Opposite views on whether lodging a costs budget a one day late is trivial -both from the same court centre! If a Mr G Exall is unable to extract principles from the case law how on earth will any of the rest of us manage to?

Comments are closed.

← A BUDGET SERVED A DAY LATE IS A “TRIVIAL” ERROR: WAIN –v- GLOUCESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL [2014] EWHC 1274 (TCC) CONSIDERED

HAS PROPER DISCLOSURE BEEN GIVEN? A NEW AREA OF BATTLE. GLOBAL MARINE DRILLSHIPS LIMITED –V- WILLIAM LA BELLA [2014] EWHC 1230 (Ch) CONSIDERED →

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: WHAT DOES “TRIVIAL” ACTUALLY MEAN? A LOOK AT THE CASES

One Response

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Recent Posts

Top Posts

Archives

Blogroll

Books

Useful Links

Copyright