Summary and implications
Mr Mitchell, or more accurately his solicitors, have been denied the ability to recover costs, estimated in excess of £500,000, because they failed to file a costs budget on time. The Court of Appeal has given clear warning that non-compliance with court rules and orders is not likely to be tolerated. The decision marks a real shift in how litigation will be conducted in the post-Jackson era.
Affirming that relief from sanction will only be granted in very limited circumstances, the Court of Appeal has upheld the initial decision to limit the claim for costs to just court fees because Mr Mitchell's solicitors failed to file the costs budget in time.
The court was led by the chief judge responsible for the administration of justice, the Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson. In dismissing the appeal the court said:
- relief from sanction was to be granted only "sparingly";
- compliance with orders and court rules is of "paramount importance"; and
- relief from sanction will typically only be given where the breach/non-compliance is minor or trivial or if there is good reason beyond the parties' control. Well-intentioned incompetence, administrative error or pressure of work is not a good reason.
This decision should serve as a wake up call to everyone engaged in civil litigation. If you anticipate not being able to meet a deadline then do your best to comply and if you cannot apply to the court well in advance of any deadline. Systems and procedures should be reviewed to ensure compliance.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
