This February my
training at B P Collins LLP has taken me, Rebecca Mitchell, to the litigation and dispute resolution practice group, where the name "Mitchell" frequently resonates
around the group. You can imagine my concern as I hear my name repeated from
across the room, but, thankfully, it is another Mitchell to whom they refer.
Andrew Mitchell.
In the wake of the
Court of Appeal's ground-breaking decision of Mitchell v News Group
Newspapers Ltd (2013) EWCA Civ 1537 ("the
Mitchell case"), there can be little doubt that a sea change in
litigation is now occurring. A sea change initiated by the implementation of
the Jackson Reforms on 1 April 2013. The Jackson Reforms are, in short,
intended to change the way litigation is conducted by enforcing a new culture
of strict compliance and controlling costs.
In the Mitchell case, Mr Mitchell's solicitors failed to
serve a costs budget on time (six days late) and the High Court Master ruled
that he was to be treated as having filed a cost budget for applicable court
fees only (this is compared to the £506,425 sought). Mr Mitchell appealed, but
the Court of Appeal refused to grant relief from the sanction imposed by the
High Court Master and concluded that if the Court of Appeal were to overturn
the decision “it is inevitable that the
attempt to achieve a change in culture would receive a major setback... in
time, legal representatives will become more efficient and will routinely
comply with rules, practice directions and orders.”
As a LPC student I
was taught to be meticulous in my approach to all court deadlines. The “clear
days” rule 2.8 of the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) was referred to at least once
a class and, inevitably, a tired-looking student would be asked to count on a
calendar to ensure that the correct date for a fictional deadline was
understood by all of the class. In the case of Mitchell, the Master drew attention to the fact that failure to
serve the costs budget in time resulted in her needing to vacate other
appointments relating to asbestos claims. The effect of one party missing a
deadline not only interrupted and delayed the Mitchell case, but also adversely affected other cases. The
courts are inundated with cases and now, more than ever, it is essential for
the legal profession to be efficient and streamlined to ensure that the court's
time is put to best use.
Furthermore, the
general consensus is that the principle “de minimis non curat lex” (the law is
not concerned with trivial things) applies here as it applies in most areas of
law and so the relief from sanctions of CPR rule 3.9 can still be relied upon
where just and proportionate. The Court of Appeal in the Mitchell case upheld
the Master's assertion that "we were
too busy to file the schedule on time" is not a valid excuse intended
to be covered by the "de minimis" principle.
The question now is how
strictly should the courts enforce compliance? In an unreported case shortly
before the Mitchell case, a Judge struck out the Claimant's costs budget
because the phrase "[Statement of Truth]" was in square brackets
which are not compliant to the mandatory requirements for a Statement of Truth
pursuant to the CPR. The costs budget had been signed and dated in the
appropriate way and, unlike in Mitchell, filed in time. Is it possible that the
Court rules are being applied too vigorously?
The greater clarity
and certainty that the new system provides is conducive to effective case
management which, in turn, can only benefit the client and improve the
reputation of the legal profession as a whole. However, the Courts must now
strike a balance between establishing a culture of compliance and the necessity
of leniency in appropriate cases.
Phil Mitchell may
have brought us drama and R.J. Mitchell the Spitfire, but Andrew Mitchell will
be remembered for his role in reinforcing a new culture of strict
compliance.
Posted by Rebecca Mitchell, trainee in the Litigation and Dispute resolution practice group.
Rebecca started her training contract in September 2013 after graduating from Newcastle University with a 2:1 (BA Hons) in History. She undertook the Graduate Diploma in Law at Kaplan Law School and has recently completed the Legal Practice Course with distinction.
