Mixed fortunes in time battles
Two law firms accused of wasting court time have had mixed success in the Court of Appeal this month.Dorset firm MacLachlans had a wasted costs order of 200 quashed after the court ruled that it had acted properly in incurring the cost of an interpreter to attend a hearing concerning an Afghan asylum seeker.He had been charged with a serious sexual offence and wished to transfer his legal aid certificate from Exeter firm Stephens & Scown to MacLachlans.The judge at first instance had accused MacLachlans of acting 'unreasonably, couching their correspondence in disrespectful and impertinent language, and forcing a hearing on the court'.The Court of Appeal said that partner Mark Griffin's letters were 'haughty, autocratic and regularly out-bid his hand.
They were ill-judged but not intemperate.
They were not, in our judgment, improper, unreasonable or negligent'.The court added though that had MacLachlans asked for costs, it would have refused them.Meanwhile, the court refused an attempt by the Chester office of Liverpool firm Bartlett & Son to overturn a decision by the High Court to strike out a claim it brought on behalf a girl injured in a road accident in 1994, when she was three years old.The case was initially struck out in 1999 because of the firm's failure to attend two case management conferences and to comply with previous court directions within an agreed time limit.Bartlett & Son then issued an identical second set of proceedings within the primary limitation period.
These were struck out by the same judge, who described them as being no more than 'a second bite of the same cherry'.The Court of Appeal said the discretion exercised by Judge Kevin Barnett in striking out the case could not be faulted.
Lord Justice Parker said the firm's failures in the original action 'were of the grossest kind, such that the judge was acting well within his powers'.
Bartlett & Son, represented by Weightmans, had no comment.Manchester firm James Chapman & Co acted for the defendant insurer.
Partner Sharon Kamil said: 'Lawyers must show respect for the court's case management powers and cannot underestimate the importance of adhering to timetables and orders imposed in the exercise of those powers.'Solicitors who do not do so cannot always hide behind arguments that their client will be prejudiced in the event that a "last resort" sanction is imposed as in this case.'Neil Rose
No comments yet