8 comments on “The CPR and the post Jackson approach.

  1. If CPR 31.14 is an effective means to see if the claimant actually has a copy of the contract upon which his claim depends, why has one particular law firm taken to refusing all such requests on the basis that “the claim will most probably be allocated to the small claims track to which CPR 31.14 does not apply”? That law firm seems to think they’ll get away with it, too, without any sanctions being applied.

    I could name the law firm in question as I have JPGs of such letters that were posted online in the last month or two – but I would prefer not to name them right now.

    • Yes, i am aware of the company you refer to. They are right in some respects that the small claims track has different disclosure rules, but it is also arguable that UNTIL a claim is allocated to track it is effectively a multi track matter.

      I cannot see a District Judge faced with a Claimant refusing to put his cards on the table, and a Defendant applying simply asking for a copy of the contract on which the Claim is based to be able to answer that claim, refusing to make an order for disclosure. such would be plainly contrary to the Court of Appeal guidance in Mitchell in my opinion.

      That firm witheld documents from me too, i applied for my client and got the order i wanted but that was Pre Mitchell, so i would expect the Court to take a much sterner view of such conduct now in light of Mitchell. I cannot think of any circumstance where a claimant can bring a claim in contract, for breach of contract, and not allow the defendant to view the contract he is alleged to have breached.

  2. Pingback: MITCHELL LINKS TO ARTICLES AND POSTS | Civil Litigation Brief

  3. I think Lord Woolf’s fond hope that litigants in person would be empowered by his reforms was fanciful. Under the Jackson reforms LiPs are now in a virtually hopeless position because a single – and inevitable – procedural slip will lead to strike outs. This is the end of access to justice as we know it. The courts have always hated LiPs in all shapes and sizes.

  4. Pingback: THREE REASONS for Bail: Fabricated Police Forensics, All Clear Brain Scan, Appalling Conditions for Litigant in Person | Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police

  5. Pingback: MITCHELL: LINKS TO USEFUL ARTICLES AND POSTS | Civil Litigation Brief

  6. Pingback: LITIGANTS in PERSON in Courts and Prisons – where do we go from here in our supposed ‘austerity times’? | Flying Vet challenges South Wales Police

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s