Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair: strike-out “disproportionate”
The Court of Appeal has overturned a judgment that imposed heavy sanctions on a law firm for missing deadlines, in a decision which casts doubt on the legacy of Mitchell.
In Michael Wilson & Partners v Sinclair [2015] EWCA Civ 774, the court held that Lewison LJ has been wrong to strike out an appeal by the law firm Michael Wilson & Partners (MWP) after it missed costs deadlines by 16 weeks and without good reason.
Granting MWP’s appeal against this decision, Richards LJ noted that the firm had filed its appeal shortly after Denton (Denton & Others v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906), which held that judges should have regard to all the circumstances of the case when considering an application for relief from sanctions. Mitchell, on the other hand, accorded “paramount importance” to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to the need to enforce compliance with rules (Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537),
Richards LJ said Denton “expressed concern that a misunderstanding of Mitchell was leading to decisions which were manifestly unjust and disproportionate, whereas a more nuanced approach was required”.
Professor Dominic Regan [1], NLJ columnist, says: “Mitchell was an aberration and this decision consigns it to history.” However, David Greene [2], senior partner at Edwin Coe [3] and NLJ consultant editor, feels it’s too early to pronounce the death of Mitchell.
“I think we are simply restoring some sense to the role of procedural rules,” Greene says. “They should not override the court’s role of administering justice but the message remains that parties must seek to comply with orders that have been made.
“It is tempting to say that now that the government has made the civil courts into a profit-making monopolised business it should be the parties who should determine their own pace.”