EXN v East Lancashire Hospitals NHS Trust & Anor

Kevin Latham (instructed by Price Slater Gawne Solicitors) for the Claimant / Appellant Joshua Munro (instructed by Acumension Ltd) for the Defendants / Respondents Hearing date: 31 March 2022 ____________________

(i) identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply with any rule, practice direction or court order which engages rule 3.9(1);

(iii) evaluate all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable the court to deal justly with the application including the factors in sub-paragraphs (a) and (b).

(b) The period over which a breach of the rules extends is likely to be significantly more serious where the party in breach knows that he or she is in default and yet does nothing to correct the position. In this case, although the breach endured for a long time, PSG did not realise that they were in breach until the decision in Springer came to their attention.

(c) The letter of 17th April 2012 came very close to complying with paragraph 9.3 falling short only in the sense that no express mention was made of a success fee. For my own part, I consider this to be very significant factor to which I will return when considering the issue of prejudice to the defendants.