Relief from sanctions cases
Lenders need to be aware of a number of judgments on relief from sanctions applications featuring the reworded Civil Procedure Rule (CPR) 3.9. Two are referred to below.
The first case is Durrant v Chief Constable of Avon & Somerset. The judgment confirms that a party should not be lulled into a false sense of security if relief from sanction has initially been granted.
In Durrant, the defendant failed to comply with an order for exchange of witness statements. An extension of time was granted, with an unless order attached, for service by 12 March 2013. The defendant served two witness statements on 13 March and the claimant complained they were out of time. The defendant applied for relief from sanction on 15 May and also sought to serve a further four statements. The trial was listed for 10 June. A further application for relief so as to allow service of two further witness statements was made on 5 June…
If you are registered and logged in to the site, click on the link below to read the rest of the Wragge & Co briefing. If not, please register or sign in with your details below.
Sign in or Register to continue reading this article
It's quick, easy and free!
It takes just 5 minutes to register. Answer a few simple questions and once completed you’ll have instant access.Register now
Why register to The Lawyer
In-depth, expert analysis into the stories behind the headlines from our leading team of journalists.
Identify the major players and business opportunities within a particular region through our series of free, special reports.
Receive your pick of The Lawyer's daily and weekly email newsletters, tailored by practice area, region and job function.
More relevant to you
To continue providing the best analysis, insight and news across the legal market we are collecting some information about who you are, what you do and where you work to improve The Lawyer and make it more relevant to you.
News from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Wragge Lawrence Graham & Co
The defence of illegality – which prevents a claimant from bringing a claim that arises out of its own illegal acts – can’t be used where the company is claiming against its directors.
Principle of the free movement of capital upheld in recent decision.