Court of Appeal to rule on ‘trivial’ breaches in Mitchell triple-header


Lord Dyson

Lord Dyson: a chance to clarify his thoughts on Mitchell

Lord Dyson, the Master of the Rolls, is to rule on the proper application of the Mitchell principles to three cases involving ‘trivial’ breaches of timetables at a Court of Appeal hearing next month.

The Mitchell ruling, in which Lord Dyson gave the lead judgment, has been attacked for being Draconian in its approach to minor breaches of court-ordered timetables and spawning a wave of satellite litigation.

Vikram Sachdeva, a barrister at 39 Essex Street chambers, acted for the appellants in one of the cases. He said that although there have been Court of Appeal judgments following on from Mitchell, there had been “no case which purports to resolve the controversies”.

He said the three cases due to come before the Court of Appeal on 16 and 17 June would cover the questions of what is a ‘trivial’ breach of a court timetable, how courts should exercise their discretion in dealing with the issue, and what they should do if there was more than one ‘trivial’ breach.

Mr Sachdeva represented the claimants in Utilise TDS v Davies and others [2014] EWHC 834 (Ch).

Judge Hodge QC, sitting as a High Court judge, ruled in the case that there was no “good reason” for him to interfere with the exercise of discretion by a district judge in refusing relief from sanctions

He said the claimants were responsible not only for one act of non-compliance with a court order, but a “second non-compliance with the very same court order” and the “complete absence of any attempt to explain” either breach.

Judge Hodge said the district judge was entitled to take the view the second act of non-compliance “rendered what would otherwise have been a trivial breach a non-trivial one”.

He said that, on the evidence before the district judge, there was clearly no good reason for the non-compliance. Dismissing the claimant’s appeal, he added that the application for relief from sanctions was not made promptly.

Judge Hodge said this lack of promptness would “in itself” have entitled the district judge to refuse the application for relief from sanctions

The other cases to be heard together by the Court of Appeal next month are Denton and others v TH White and Decadent Vapours v Bevan and others.

 

Tags:




Leave a Comment

By clicking Submit you consent to Legal Futures storing your personal data and confirm you have read our Privacy Policy and section 5 of our Terms & Conditions which deals with user-generated content. All comments will be moderated before posting.

Required fields are marked *
Email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Blog

18 October 2018
Claire Stockford

An analogue decision? Google defeats attempt at consumer ‘class action’

In an eagerly awaited judgment, the High Court handed down its ruling in Richard Lloyd v Google LLC on 8 October. It seems clear that there is a degree of reluctance to permit group litigation which will not materially benefit consumers. That being said, it is hard to ignore the increased possibilities of group litigation in the context of corporate data breaches, particularly following the implementation of GDPR earlier this year.

Read More