In a landmark judgment released this morning the Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal by lawyers representing ex-minister Andrew Mitchell in his libel action against The Sun’s “plebgate” story. The Master of the Rolls Lord Dyson said a “major setback” to the culture envisaged with the introduction of the Jackson Reforms would be “inevitable” if the appeal was overturned. He said that any relief from sanctions “would give rise to uncertainty and complexity and stimulate satellite litigation”.
This appeal was seen as a test case for libel and defamation proceedings in a post-Jackson era, with the court asked to decide what measures could be taken against legal teams, such as Atkins Thomson in this case, should they not comply with case management timetables.
In rejecting this appeal the court has shown that it will take a tough stance and impose spending restrictions if firms don’t comply with the timetable.
Lord Dyson said that the claimant’s solicitors had been “stretched very thin in terms of resources” but refused relief on the grounds that these problems weren’t unusual.
“The defaults by the claimant’s solicitors were not minor or trivial and there was no good excuse for them. They resulted in an abortive costs budgeting hearing and an adjournment which has serious consequences for other litigants”, the judgment said.
“Although it seems harsh in the individual case of Mr Mitchell’s claim, if we were to overturn the decision to refuse relief, it is inevitable that the attempt to achieve a change in culture would receive a major setback.”
“We hope that our decision will send out a clear message,” Dyson added.
Do you have a claim for professional negligence? Find out more about how you can make a claim for professional negligence through our dedicated website.