Dominic Regan provides a guide to the post-Mitchell three-step test
“(1) On an application for relief from any sanction imposed for a failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order, the court will consider all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, including the need—
(a) for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost; and
(b) to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders.
(2) An application for relief must be supported by evidence.”
These two sentences have generated incalculable misery and millions of pounds in wasted costs. The wording is that of the April 2013 relief from sanctions test which replaced the nine-item piecemeal test that had applied since 1999 (Rule 3.9 Relief from sanctions)
The objective
The intention was to encourage compliance with orders, rules and directions. That very objective was added to the overriding objective last year. The belief was that a firmer approach to default
.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=e3c4b2f1_1)
