PI Brief Update

A Broadening of Perspective or a Narrowing of the Rules? Conduct and Relief From Sanctions Following Cockell v Holton (No. 2) EWHC 1117 (TCC) - Christopher McClure, John M Hayes

05/07/15. It would be easy to succumb to the temptation for sensationalism and pen an article which gives the impression that a simple typing error is somehow synonymous with a possible loss of £1.6 million.

Whilst enthralling, that would be to miss the point. When Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart refused the Defendant’s application for relief from sanction following the automatic striking out of its £1.6 million counterclaim, he did so because the error in question was a “culmination” of a course of conduct that amounted to a continuing breach of a court order made some three months’ previous.

Turning to the facts, the December order required the Defendant to file and serve an amended defence and counterclaim by 20 March 2015 (probably by 4:00pm), failing which the counterclaim would stand automatically struck out. At 3:46pm on 20 March, the Defendant attempted to file and serve said statements of case. Unfortunately, the court’s email address was incorrectly typed and the message returned undeliverable – something which, for reasons known only to the solicitor in question, did not come to light until the following week whereupon papers were filed with the court albeit out of time. Consequently, the statement of case was struck out and it behoved the Defendant to make an application for relief...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...