Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd
After the Jackson reforms, the courts took a strict approach to relief from sanctions for failure to comply with rules and orders.
Facts
Andrew Mitchell MP sued The Sun newspaper for libel over its report of an incident in which he allegedly called police officers at the gates of Downing Street plebs, an incident known as Plebgate. His solicitors failed to file a costs budget by the deadline set by the court, filing it the day before the hearing. Under the rules, a party that failed to file a budget on time was treated as having filed a budget limited to court fees, which meant he could recover almost none of his legal costs even if he won. His solicitors applied for relief from this sanction.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal refused relief from the sanction. Lord Dyson MR said that, following the Jackson reforms of civil litigation, which introduced a new version of CPR 3.9, the courts should take a stricter approach to non compliance with rules, practice directions and orders, giving greater weight to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to enforce compliance. Relief would usually be granted only if the default was trivial or there was a good reason for it. The decision led to a large number of satellite disputes, and the approach was clarified in Denton v TH White Ltd.
Related cases on civil justice and procedure
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
- Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 655, [2005] 1 WLR 3055
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119
- Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926
- Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2000
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
- Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
