High Court considers time extension and unless order applications following Jackson changes to CPR

The applicants applied for a fifth extension of time for disclosure. Since the previous extension, they had appointed new solicitors who effectively had to restart disclosure because the quantity of documents meant it was in the interests of the parties and the court that disclosure be carried out through an e-platform, rather than manually, as before.

The respondents relied on two post-Jackson decisions to show that the court should now take a stricter approach to non compliance with directions, given the change to the overriding objective (Fons HF v Corporal Ltd and another [2013] EWHC 1278 (Ch) and Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture and others [2013] EWHC 1242 (TCC), see Legal updates, Court warns of importance of compliance with rules, directions and orders under revised CPR (High Court) and High Court adopts stricter approach to compliance with court rules and refuses extension of time for service).

Following a thorough review of the procedural history, Henderson J granted a fifth extension of time for disclosure but did so on strict "unless" terms that the claim be struck out if the applicant failed to comply. He considered that the respondents had been unable to demonstrate any significant additional prejudice and to refuse the extension would be disproportionate and unfair in the circumstances.

In reaching his decision, he noted that, following the changes to CPR 1.1(2), a court will scrutinise extension applications more rigorously than it might have done before 1 April 2013. However, he stressed the importance of not going to the other extreme and encouraging unreasonable opposition to extensions, applied for in good time, involving no significant fresh prejudice to other parties.

It is interesting to see a case which emphasises a balanced approach to the implementation of the overriding objective following the Jackson/civil litigation reforms.

Case: Re Atrium Training Services Ltd and Connor Williams Ltd [2013] EWHC 1562 (Ch) (7 June 2013).