A broader application of the cases of Mitchell and Denton

Three cases recently heard in the Court of Appeal confirm a broadening of the application of the cases of Andrew Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] and Denton v TH White Ltd, Decadent Vapours Ltd, Bevan, Utilise TDS Ltd, Davies [2014].

In the case of Walsham Chalet Park Ltd (t/a the Dream Lodge Group) v Tallington Lakes Ltd [2014] the Court of Appeal ruled that Mitchell and Denton apply to strike out applications pursuant to CPR 3.4. Nevertheless, it was stressed that the ultimate question for the Court is different depending on whether the application is for relief pursuant to CPR 3.9 or an application to strike out pursuant to CPR 3.4. The question for the Court when considering a strike out application is whether the sanction is proportional. However, when considering an application for relief, it is already assumed that the sanction was properly imposed and the question is whether relief from that sanction should be granted.

In the case of Hysaj v Secretary of State for the Home Department and other appeals [2014] the Court of Appeal ruled that CPR 3.9 and the guidelines in Denton apply to out of time applications to extend the time to file an appellant’s notice.

In the case of Hague Plant Ltd v Hague and others [2014] it was held that the Mitchell guidelines apply to applications to amend Particulars of Claim. In Hague the Court of Appeal refused an application to amend Particulars of Claim since it was disproportionate.