The True Cost of Change - Lianne Naughton, 7 Harrington Street Chambers
10/01/14. The year 2013 saw an amazing change in the legal landscape. Some might say for the better. Most would not. The introduction of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 following Lord Justice Jackson’s review of the Civil Procedure Rules swept in in April. Prior to its introduction Lord Justice Jackson made it clear that a sweeping change to CPR 3.9 Relief from Sanctions was at the heart of the revolution. Compliance with Rules and Court Orders was intransigent.
In his 18th implementation lecture, he stated
“Doing justice in each set of proceedings is to ensure that proceedings are dealt with justly and at proportionate cost. Justice in the individual case is now only achievable through the proper application of the CPR consistently with the overriding objective… Parties can no longer expect indulgence if they fail to comply with their procedural obligations. Those obligations not only serve the purpose of ensuring that they conduct the litigation proportionately in order to ensure their own costs are kept within proportionate bounds. But more importantly they serve the wider public interest of ensuring that other litigants can obtain justice efficiently and proportionately, and that the court...
Image ©iStockphoto.com/sodafish
![Appeal judge rules that credit hire company has no costs liability following a finding of fundamental dishonesty in personal injury case: RSA v. Fastrack Solutions Limited [2023] 4 WLUK 92 - David Bowden, Erimus Chambers](/content/images/resized/images/stories/carkeys_72_72.jpg)
