K/S Mountain Invest v Ducat Maritime Limited
[2023] EWHC 939 (Comm)
Palmali Shipping SA v Litasco SA
3 May 2024
[2024] EWHC 1246 (Comm)
High Court
A shipping company missed deadlines to provide expert evidence in court due to their lawyer's mistakes. The judge understood that the company itself wasn't at fault and that the delay was mainly due to an earlier unrelated court issue and the lawyer's negligence. Because the trial wasn't too far off and the other side wasn't severely harmed, the judge allowed the company more time to provide the evidence.
Key Facts
- •Claimant Palmali Shipping SA sought relief against sanctions for failing to serve expert evidence by the deadline set by Foxton J on July 7, 2023.
- •The claim is for USD 172 million (significantly reduced from the original USD 1.9 billion) for breach of contract.
- •The October 2022 trial was adjourned due to sanctions concerns related to the Russian invasion of Ukraine impacting the defendant.
- •Claimant changed solicitors from Rosling King LLP to Waterson Hicks in September 2023.
- •Waterson Hicks' solicitor, Mr. Morgan, provided negligent advice leading to the missed deadlines for expert evidence and further disclosure.
- •Mr. Morgan subsequently suffered a stroke, and Rosling King was reinstated in March 2024, promptly filing the relief application.
- •The trial is still 8.5 months away, and parties agreed on adjusted timetables depending on the court's decision.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions will be granted considering all circumstances, including the need for efficient litigation and enforcement of court orders.
CPR 3.9
The Denton test involves three stages: assessing the seriousness of the breach, considering the reasons for the default, and evaluating all circumstances for a just outcome.
Denton v TH White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 at [24]
Client and solicitor's positions are equated when considering reasons for delay; client cannot claim a good reason if the delay is the solicitor's fault.
Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537
Outcomes
Relief from sanctions granted.
The court considered the unusual circumstances: the initial adjournment due to sanctions unrelated to the claimant, the solicitor's serious negligence, the lack of claimant's fault, the manageable impact on the revised timetable, and the potential prejudice to the claimant from a refusal.