header-logo header-logo

Caliendo v Mishcon de Reya: post-Mitchell costs

23 October 2014
Issue: 7627 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

The High Court has granted relief from sanctions to two claimants who were three and a half months late in notifying their defendants about funding agreements due to an “oversight”, in the latest costs ruling to follow Denton and Mitchell .

In Caliendo v Mishcon de Reya [2014] EWHC 3414 (Ch), the claimants were allowed to keep their conditional fee agreements with DLA Piper, even though they should have notified within seven days. The case, which involved a shares dispute with Mishcon, was deferred until after the Mitchell and Denton cases on sanctions under the new post-Jackson review civil procedure rules.

Mr Justice Hildyard found that relief could be granted even though the claimants had no “good reason” for their delay, since the defendants had not been prejudiced by the delay and it would not be “fair, just or appropriate” to deny relief.

Issue: 7627 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Freeths—Ruth Clare

Freeths—Ruth Clare

National real estate team bolstered by partner hire in Manchester

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Farrer & Co—Claire Gordon

Partner appointed head of family team

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

mfg Solicitors—Neil Harrison

Firm strengthens agriculture and rural affairs team with partner return

NEWS
Conveyancing lawyers have enjoyed a rapid win after campaigning against UK Finance’s decision to charge for access to the Mortgage Lenders’ Handbook
The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) has launched a recruitment drive for talented early career and more senior barristers and solicitors
Regulators differed in the clarity and consistency of their post-Mazur advice and guidance, according to an interim report by the Legal Services Board (LSB)
The Solicitors Act 1974 may still underpin legal regulation, but its age is increasingly showing. Writing in NLJ this week, Victoria Morrison-Hughes of the Association of Costs Lawyers argues that the Act is ‘out of step with modern consumer law’ and actively deters fairness
A Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) ruling has reopened debate on the availability of ‘user damages’ in competition claims. Writing in NLJ this week, Edward Nyman of Hausfeld explains how the CAT allowed Dr Liza Lovdahl Gormsen’s alternative damages case against Meta to proceed, rejecting arguments that such damages are barred in competition law
back-to-top-scroll