A little light relief for Friday afternoon. A decision of Males J started doing the rounds last week: Vivek Rattan v UBS AG, London Branch  EWHC 665 (Comm). It is well worth a read, not least because it is short.
The case concerned misselling (or as the Claimant put in its skeleton argument “misspelling”) of investments. The Claimant took the point that the Defendant’s costs budget had been filed less than the required seven days before the relevant CMC. Applying Mitchell (which of course also involved late service of a costs budget) the Claimant contended the Defendant was only entitled to court fees. Males J described this argument as “manifest nonsense”. That might seem surprising. Is this the start of the tide turning against the harshness of the Mitchell regime?
It is nothing of the kind. Reading the case itself dispels any such a notion. The Claimant’s solicitors had written to their opponents asking for confirmation that they would file their budget “on 28 February 2014”; the Defendant’s solicitors agreed that they would file it “by 28 February 2014”. They filed it on 28 February 2014. That was six, not seven, clear days before the CMC.
What is the difference between this case and Mitchell? As Males J put it with heavy irony, “the unsophisticated reader might think that [the correspondence] was the clearest possible agreement that a costs budget exchanged on 28 February 2014 would be in time but [Counsel for the Claimant] submits that such a reader would have failed to grasp the true subtlety of this correspondence”. The judge rejected this submission holding: “It is clear that there was an agreement. Even if [the Claimant’s] strained construction of the correspondence had been justified, the Defendant’s solicitors understanding of the position was entirely reasonable. If relief from sanctions had been necessary, which in my judgment it was not, the case for such relief would have been overwhelming”.
In this author’s view, Rattan does not signal a dilution of the Mitchell principles. Instead, it is an illustration of the difference between a genuine Mitchell point and one which is, in the words of Males J, merely “futile and time-wasting” and will be discouraged by the courts. As Leggatt J put it in Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare SA v Ardaf SA Insurance & Insurance Co  EWHC 398 (Comm): “The decision ... in Mitchell ... has rightly been described as a “game changer” [...]. It is important for litigants to understand, however, how the rules of the game have changed and how they have not. The defendants in this case have sought to rely on Mitchell to turn to their tactical advantage a short delay by the claimants in providing security for costs which in itself had no material impact on the material impact on the efficient conduct of litigation. [...] The defendants’ stance disregarded the duty of parties and their representatives to cooperate with each other in the conduct of proceedings and the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate costs. It stood Mitchell on its head.”