DENTON PODCAST

I spend an hour at 1pm Friday discussing the detail, a Lips Legal production. Book now ( please). 

DENTON - the key references.

A GUIDED TOUR OF  DENTON V WHITE .
Mitchell was an unimpeachable decision ( paragraphs 9 and 98 ).
Litigants need finality , not procrastination ( para89). The new thinking is that one abides by Orders and then there is a relentless push to trial.
Unless orders should not be flung around but rather confined to circumstances here they are truly necessary ( para 44).
Parties must return to the era of co-operation. The failure to agree sensible extensions and/ or the taking of bad points could result in " heavy costs sanctions " that could impact upon the entire action and not be confined to the specific application itself ( para43).
" Trivial  " is no longer part of the legal lexicon ( para26 ). Rather , the test is whether the breach is serious or significant . If so , one must , as before , look for a good excuse to explain the default ( para30).
The Mitchell examples  of a good reason remain of assistance but are neither exhaustive nor definitive ( para30).
The previous history of the defaulter is irrelevant at the outset. It only enters the equation at stage 3 when one has regard to all the circumstances of the case .
Delay in seeking relief ( see DURRANT ) also comes into play at stage 3 ( para36).
A gulf emerges upon interpreting all of the circumstances at stage 3 . The 2 explicit factors in the Rule must be given " particular weight " say the majority at para 38 whereas Jackson LJ considers that they are part off the general matrix and do not command additional weight .
" The new test is not intended to introduce a harsh regime of almost zero tolerance " concluded Sir Rupert ( para 96).  

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2014/906.html

EXAGGERATED CLAIMS

The House of Commons Transport committee is considering  legislation which would mean a claimant who grossly exaggerated would automatically lose all right to recover. 

Negligence claims against solicitors

I am retained by a major law firm to give their litigators regular updates. The practice specialises in defending solicitors .
This time last year they had been notified of perhaps a dozen potential claims.
This year they have 300 . What is worse is that most have been triggered by events after the Mitchell decision.
It is so important to be abreast of developments. Or else .
The great Frank Maher makes the point that if you get a payout on your indemnity insurance you are really getting a loan . What they pay will be recouped via a higher renewal premium. 

RIGHT TO DIE ?

At long last the Supreme Court judgment will be published on wednesday morning.

APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF

I will be writing and talking at length about the new Mitchell guidelines as soon as they appear .
Meanwhile, on any application please, please make it as quickly as ever you can ( remember DURRANT ) and give a thorough explanation at the outset for the default ( see BAHO ).
I think it deeply impressive if you are able to  point out that your compliance record has otherwise been impeccable .
It does no harm to confirm that , were relief to be secured , the timetable would not be disrupted. 

CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

In GROAKE V FONTAINE (2014) EWHC 1676 (QB) Eady J allowed a last minute amendment enabling D to allege contrib. No mention of DZIENNIK V CTO in 2006 where a powerful Court of Appeal gave C a windfall of 100% damages despite finding of 60% contrib. True that in CTO contrib was not pleaded but interesting that the court did not see it wrong to make D pay more than it ought.