Last updateTue, 24 Feb 2015 5pm

REFORMS: Taking a break

02 August 2013  

Simon Chandler and Sally Lord examine the emerging approach to relief from sanctions taken by the courts since the 1 April reforms

One of the most important aspects of the costs reforms introduced on 1 April 2013 was the change to CPR3.9 dealing with relief from sanction. Together with a small but significant tweak to the wording of the overriding objective (CPR1.1), this means that the courts are now obliged to take a much tougher approach to non-compliance with court rules, particularly in respect of any defaults regarding the litigation timetable. This article considers the lessons arising from an early decided case (Venulum Property Investments v Space Architecture) and how the changes to CPR3.9 is likely to interact with related reforms to change the litigation landscape in practice.

Additional Info

  • Case(s) Referenced:

    Tinkler & anor v Elliot [2012] EWCA Civ 1289

    Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd & ors [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC)