Report comment

Following on from Anon @ 17:32’s comment, I never really understood why Jackson LJ and the CPR Committee felt the need to interfere with 3.9 CPR at all. The previous framework for granting relief from sanctions was far more comprehensive and recognised the fallibility of individual litigators as human beings as well as the interests of justice. I can only assume that those in power wanted to make access to justice more difficult which would be consistent with the general trend since General Election in 2010.

I was a paralegal in a defendant personal injury firm at the time Mitchell was decided. The firm was shamefully quick to exploit the Mitchell judgment in order to impress insurance companies without even a fibre of regard for the injured person caught up in the litigation process. How can fee earners who behave like this even describe themselves as legal professionals? I certainly have no respect for these types of firms.