Case Note Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014]

Question: Describe about the Case Note of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014]? Answer: Case Note: Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2014] The issue in the present case arose due to the failure of the claimant to file costs budget at least before seven days of the relevant hearing. In this regard, Master McCloud sanctioned the claimant by requiring the claimant to be treated as having filed a costs budget that comprised only be applicable codes the instead of the actual costs budget that was filed later comprising 506,425. Against this sanction, and the deal was referred by the claimant against dissension, and appeal was preferred by the claimant under Civil Procedure Rule, 3.9 to claim relief against this sanction. But believe was refuse to be granted by Master McCloud on the ground that no adequate excuse was present for this breach. As a result the Claimant preferred an appeal against the original sanction and also against the order refusing to grant the relief. Under these circumstances, it was stated by the Court of Appeal that in this case, that an order of sanction can be made by the Master. Moreover, the court of appeals also stated that in such a case, the relief can be granted only in cases where the noncompliance is (i) of trivial nature (like the case where there is a failure of form instead of the failure of substance or a case where the party has missed the deadline narrowly) or (ii) good reason is present on part of the party for noncompliance (a good reason may arise under the circumsta nces that are beyond the control of the party.) For example, it cannot be considered as a sufficient and good reason if the party has missed a deadline as a result of too much work or due to an administrative error. In this regard, the Court of Appeal stated regarding the decision made by the Master on 18th of June stated that in this case, Master could be guided by Civil Procedure Rule 3.14 because it represented the view adopted by the CPR Committee related with the fact that part can be considered as proportionate sanction for the failure of a party to file the costs budget within the prescribed time. Similarly, the Court of Appeal also stated that the Master was not wrong to construe that CPR 3.14 referred to the failure of the party to file costs budget within the time that has been prescribed by CPR 3.13 13 or seven days. At the same time, the Court of Appeal also stated that the decision cannot be considered as disproportionate and against the overriding objective. It was proved that the hearing of 18th June was abortive because the solicitor of the party failed to produce evidence that could have persuaded the court to adopt such a course. Commentary: Keeping in view the Jackson Reforms, the recent decision delivered by the court of appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1537, provides guidance related with the circumstances in which relief can be granted from the sanctions that deal with the noncompliance of rules, court orders or practice directions. In the same way, in this case has also resulted in providing a warning to the parties who have reached any order or procedural rules, particularly the parties who have been late in filing their cost budgets. In this way, the decision of the Court of Appeal confirms that from now on, the courts will adopt a more robust approach regarding the conclusions made by Sir Rupert Jackson in which he stated that the courts have become too tall regarding the issues related with delay and noncompliance of the orders. In the same way, this decision has also endorsed the recommendations made by Jackson that emphasis needs to be placed on the need that the litigation sh ould be conducted efficiently and also at a proportionate cost. Similarly the need has also been emphasized that there is a need to enforce compliance by the parties regarding the rules. In this regard it was stated by the Court of Appeal that while it is not necessary that the new approach should be extreme, which means that the relief can be granted by the court in exceptional circumstances only, at the same time, it also requires that the relief should be granted in few cases than earlier. Regarding the decision made on 18th of July, the Court of Appeal stated that the new words used in CPR 3.9 indicate towards a change of emphasis. Now it is required that the litigation should be conducted efficiently as well as proportionately. Similarly it is of utmost significance that the rules, court orders and practice directions to the complied with strictly. In this regard while it is necessary that all circumstances of each individual case should be considered, less weight should be given to them as compared to these two considerations. In this way, the Court of Appeal stated that with this decision, it can be hoped that a clear message will be provided to the parties that they are required to ensure efficiency and also required to ensure that all the rules, court orders and practice directions are strictly complied with. As a result of the severe nature of the sanctions that have been imposed in this case and which are also acknowledged by the court to be somewhat harsh, keeping in view the circumstances of the present case, particularly for what appears to be a relatively minor default, it can be hoped that strict compliance can be ensured with this decision from the parties regarding the applicable rules, court orders and practice directions. It was stated by the Court of Appeal that the Master was right when it was recognized that there has been a change in emphasis under CPR 3.9. Although it is possible that the response could have been different regarding the sanctions that have been imposed on the party, any grant of partial relief from the operation of CPR 3.14 cannot be generally considered to be appropriate. When the provisions of this decision are considered narrowly, it appears that the purpose of this decision is to highlight the importance of cost budgeting. At the same time, this decision also has some wider implications that are related with the relief from sanctions and also the way the litigation is conducted generally. Therefore despite the fact that there is still a chance available to the parties to argue that a particular breach is trivial, and therefore it should not preclude the court from granting relief and it is also available to the parties to claim that are good reason is present for the beach, generally the courts will adopt a more robust approach while granting a relief to such a party. In this way, this decision implies that the interests of the individual litigants will not be preferred as compared to the wider public interest that is present in all litigants to obtain justice efficiently and proportionately. After the decision given by the Court of Appeal, it has become very significant to ensure that the parties complied with CPR guidelines in order to ensure efficient than proportionate justice. In the same way, the solicitors can be held responsible for procedural lapses and errors because they are no longer considered as good reasons. The situation remains the same even if a party has suffered a detriment but the wider public interest to ensure efficient justice is more important than the interest of individual litigants. In this way, it can be said that this particular decision will go a long way in ensuring the compliance of parties regarding the applicable rules, court orders and practice directions. References James Farrell and Maura McIntosh, Mitchell guidance clarified: an end to the roller coaster ride? Thomson Reuters (Professional) UK Limited available at: https://www.google.co.in/search?output=searchsclient=psyabq=Mitchell+v+News+Group+Newspapers+Ltd+%5B2014%5DbtnK Case LawDenton v TH White Ltd, Decadent Vapours Ltd v Bevan, Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies [2014] EWCA Civ 906Hallam Estates Ltd v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661Mealey Horgan plc v Horgan and another [1999] All ER (D) 1523Utilise TDS Ltd v Davies and others [2014] EWCA Civ 906)