Report comment

It might be the right decision under the rules, but it doesn't pass the 'fairness' sniff test in my view. I agree with other commentators that there are other appropriate sanctions.

Furthermore, the CPR are rooted in the Woolf reforms 20 odd years ago, which were intended to discourage procedural litigation and petty point taking - yet the CPR are longer than the RSC or CCR and contain many more procedural traps, with unpredictable consequences. This is another example of how the CPR encourage procedural litigation far more than the old rules ever did (as the rewards can be so much higher), the exact opposite of the original purpose.