Embedded Files
Created: Sunday, 1 December 2013 at 21:25
Where: Mac SSD /Users/mira/Documents/20 05 24 desktop/20 04 30 desktop/Dropbox/
13 07 20 FINANCIAL CRIMES CONT./13/13 08 23 -Andrew Smith J 2013 Folio 250- NO HEARING if LETTER WILL DO
Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWHC 2696 (Comm)
Claim No: 2013 Folio 250
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEENS BENCH DIVISION
COMMERCIAL
Claim No: 2013 Folio 250
Royal Courts of Justice
Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London EC24 1NL
23/08/2013
B e f o r e :
THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH
____________________
Between:
MR JUSTICE ANDREW SMITH:
EXTRACTS
Extract (1): over riding objective
That does not, to my mind, suggest that in some sense suit has not been brought.
It merely means an extension of time is required in order for the claimants
to take advantage of the suit that was brought before the deadline.
There is no question of the court (in the words of Mr Jones):
"Stripping the defendants of a contractual time bar."
This seems to me the clearest case of granting the claimants' extension.
This is not because the court is unconcerned to ensure that Rules and
orders are observed because it is unrealistic to think that no litigation solicitor
(inaudible) or that justice always requires that indulgence should be refused.
In this case a solicitor erred.
The error should have been inconsequential.
The overriding objective demands that relief be granted and I grant it.
Extract (2): minor issues do not require hearing/danger of mechanical rules
It is ironic that, but for changes to the Rules and the Sir Rupert Jackson report
designed to save costs, this matter, I have no doubt, would have been dealt with
without a hearing and with minimum expense.
As it is, costs of something over £21,000 have been incurred by the defendant
including about £10,000 by way of counsel's fees.
I understand that, mercifully, the claimant's costs have been much more moderate.
Extract (3): opportunism not condoned
The defendants' attempts to exploit the error in the way that they have are,
to my mind, regrettable.
Extract (4): hearing is not a substitute for a short letter
I consider that an oral hearing was unnecessary. Nothing was argued that could not have been presented in a reasonably short letter to the court.
Certainly there was no need for the extended timetable and delay to the litigation that the defendants had sought.
Extract (5): judicial guidance
I very much hope that changes designed to reduce costs will not have
the effect of detracting from the sensible cooperation between solicitors
which have, for years, characterised litigation in this court and, I dare say in other courts, otherwise the fault of those solicitors who have delayed and caused unnecessary expense in litigation through delay would find manifestation in aggravating the costs on a more routine litigation.
Most cargo claims are dealt with on the basis of sensible and proper cooperation between the cargo interest insurers and (inaudible) clubs.
If the points of the kind taken by the defendants result from a change in the Rules, far from the changes at reducing costs and delays in litigation of this kind the changes will, regrettably, aggravate them.
https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Comm/2013/2696.html
Page updated
Google Sites
Report abuse