Be particular about particulars — Venulum Property Investments v Space Architecture
In this briefing, we look at the issues raised by Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd. These include the court’s approach to applications for relief from sanctions made before 1 April 2013 but heard after that date, and extensions of time for service of particulars of claim.
The new CPR 3.9 applies where the application for relief from sanctions is made on or after 1 April 2013. CPR 23.5 states that an application is made when the court receives the application notice. In Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd, the application for an extension of time for service of the particulars of claim was made before 1 April, but it was heard on 11 April.
Initially both counsel agreed that the new version of CPR 3.9 could be ignored but, in what was described as a late change of mind, counsel for the defendants submitted that this was not an application for relief from sanctions but an application for an extension of time under CPR 3.1(2)(a).
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Mills & Reeve briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
News from Mills & Reeve
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Mills & Reeve
Mills & Reeve has released the December edition of its Health Legal Update.
The Court of Appeal has handed down its decision in Mitchell v News Group, resolving recent uncertainty about the implementation of Jackson reforms — at least for the time being.
Analysis from The Lawyer
The trend for unbundling legal work is advancing through the law firm ranks but there is still resistance in some quarters - namely in-house. We asked why