Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 27 DECEMBER 2017

Don't Question Court Correspondence?

The Judge therefore held that there was no breach of CPR 3.13, and would in any event have granted relief from sanctions.

United KingdomLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration

The judgment of Coulson J in Freeborn v Marcal  [2017] EWHC 3046 (TCC) encourages careful consideration of whether or not to insist on an application for relief from sanctions.

The Defendant served its costs budget fewer than 21 days before the CMC, being the time limit which applies by virtue of the current version of CPR 3.13, "unless the court orders otherwise". 

It did so in reliance on a letter from the Court, which, as found by the judge, had the effect of varying that time limit to one of 7 days.

The Judge therefore held that there was no breach of CPR 3.13, and would in any event have granted relief from sanctions.

The Judge was critical of the Claimant's "pedantic" point about the court's letter and of its stance that the Defendant was required to apply for relief from sanctions if its budget was not to be treated as one limited to court fees. He ordered the Claimant to pay the Defendant's costs of the application.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from