Weightmans claims first post-Jackson relief from sanctions victory

Insurance specialists Weightmans has claimed to have won the first victory in a post-Jackson application for relief from sanctions.

The High Court considered both the old version of CPR 3.9, with its list of nine factors, and what Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart described as the 'radically amended' new version.

Weightmans was acting for estate agents, known as 'the Miller defendants', in a professional negligence claim brought by a property developer against, among others, a firm of architects.

The High Court heard that the developer, Venulum Property Investments, made an application for permission to extend time for service of the particulars of claim. The Miller defendants opposed the application, but the others agreed to a short extension of time.

Delivering judgment in Venulum Property Investments v Space Architecture and others [2013] EWHC 1242, Mr Justice Edwards-Stuart said the claim arose from a residential development in Northampton.

He said it emerged, after exchange of contracts, that the number of parking spaces had to cut by 30 per cent to enable the supporting posts of the building to be the right size.

Although the claimant, which is registered in the Cayman Islands, was "fully aware" of the situation in early 2007, Edwards-Stuart J said it did not issue negligence proceedings until the end of 2012.

He said the claim form was served with effect from 12 March 2013, but the particulars of claim were not served at the same time because Venulum's solicitors, Shoosmiths, "thought, wrongly, that they had a further 14 days in which to do so".

Edwards-Stuart J said that CPR 3.9, which sets out the relief from sanctions framework, had been "radically amended with effect from 1 April 2013".

He said that counsel for the defendants, Lord Marks QC, was not prepared to say that the list of nine factors set out in the old version of CPR 3.9 could be ignored.

Edwards-Stuart concluded, having considered the factors set out in the old version of the rule, that the submissions were "fairly finely balanced".

However, he said three factors were "of particular importance" - that the claimant delayed for over five years before instructing solicitors, that the claim against the Miller defendants was not strong and that the claimant was "seeking to advance a claim for bad faith that is pleaded in particular vague terms".

Edwards-Stuart J went on: "In my judgment, when the circumstances are considered as a whole, particularly in the light of the stricter approach that must now be taken by the courts towards those who fail to comply with rules following the new changes to the CPR, this is a case where the court should refuse permission to extend time.

"The claimant has taken quite long enough to bring these proceedings and enough is now enough."

Edward Lewis (pictured), partner and head of construction risk at Weightmans, said the ruling was "extremely important in highlighting the tightening of standards and the approach that is to be expected of the courts" under the new rules.

"This ruling offers a stark reminder to all practitioners that we are operating in the context of a much altered litigation landscape."