R - Relief from sanction
28/11/24
BANGS v FM CONWAY LTD [2024] EWCA Civ 1461
The merits of the underlying claim are irrelevant when the court has to make a case management decision such as whether to grant relief from sanction. There is an exception if a party wishes to contend that its case is so strong that it would be able to obtain summary judgment. Even then, the merits should only be taken into account when this can be readily demonstrated, without detailed investigation. A party who wishes to contend that the merits of its case satisfy the summary judgment test must give clear notice of that contention sufficiently in advance of the hearing to enable the other party to decide what evidence it wishes to deploy. The other party will not be expected to deploy evidence to the extent that it would at trial. All the other party has to do is to show that there are sufficient matters in dispute that summary judgment is likely to be inappropriate.
2/8/17
MOTT v LONG [2017] EWHC 2130 (TCC)
Defendants who filed costs budgets 10 days late were granted relief from sanction on terms that they paid the costs of the application.
14/7/15
CANT v HERTZ CORP [2015] EWHC 2617 (Ch)
Amendment and service of a claim form without the claim form being re-sealed before service was a failure which could be cured by an application for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9.
23/2/15
HOME GROUP LTD v MATREJEK [2015] EWHC 441 (QB)
Appeal dismissed against grant of relief from sanction of striking out for claimant’s failure to attend a directions hearing.
10/2/15
JACKSON v THOMPSONS SOLICITORS [2015] EWHC 549 (QB)
The defendants failed to give notice in accordance with CPR 44.15(2) using the prescribed form (N251) that they and counsel were acting under CFAs. The court granted relief from sanction under CPR 3.9 applying the test in Denton v White.
16/12/14
R (HYSAJ) v SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT [2014] EWCA Civ 1633
The Denton principles for relief from sanction apply to applications to appeal out of time. Shortage of funds or inability to pay for legal representation is not good reason for delay [43], nor does the mere fact of being unrepresented provide good reason for not adhering to the rules [44]. Only in those cases where the court can see without much investigation that the grounds of appeal are either very strong or very weak will the merits have a significant part to play when it comes to balancing the various factors that have to be considered [46].
12/12/14
WALSHAM CHALET PARK LTD v TALLINGTON LAKES LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 1607
The principles in Denton v White for relief from sanction apply to applications to strike out a claim for non-compliance with a court order.
4/7/14
DENTON v TH WHITE LTD [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Explains the test for relief from sanction in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers. A judge should address the application in three stages. First, identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the failure. If the breach is neither serious nor significant, relief will usually be granted. Second, consider why the default occurred. Third, evaluate all the circumstances of the case, giving particular weight to CPR r 3.9(1)(a) (whether the breach has affected the efficient conduct of litigation at proportionate cost) and (b) (the need for compliance with the rules). Parties must co-operate to avoid satellite litigation. Parties unreasonably refusing extensions of time or relief from sanctions should be penalised in costs. This may include substantially reducing costs of a successful party at the end of a case or awarding indemnity costs against an unsuccessful party.
16/4/14
CHARTWELL ESTATE AGENTS LTD v FERGIES PROPERTIES SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506
The lower court had been entitled to grant the claimant relief from sanction for failing to serve witness statements in time. Both parties had been in default and refusal of relief would have effectively ended the claim.
15/4/14
KANERIA v KANERIA (RE GUIDEZONE LTD) [2014] EWHC 1165 (Ch)
A application for an extension of a time limit made before the time limit expired should be determined having regard to the overriding objective, not by applying the guidelines in Mitchell v News Group.
11/4/14
CANNING v NETWORK RAIL INFRASTRUCTURE LTD [2014] EWHC (QB)
An application to rely on a supplementary witness statement after the deadline for exchange of witness statements required relief from sanction and was refused because it was made so late, changed the applicant’s case and would have caused delay.
6/3/14
MIAH v JALIL [2014] EWCA Civ 341
Having granted relief from sanction for late service of witness statements a judge had been wrong not to grant an adjournment of the start of the trial. The defendants were not prepared for trial and had reasonably assumed that an adjournment would follow relief being granted.
20/1/14
M A LLOYD & SONS LTD v PPC INTERNATIONAL LTD [2014] EWHC 41 (QB)
Delay in failing to comply with an order for service of witness statements on a particular issue had been substantial and there had been no good reason for it. The claimant was debarred from producing evidence on that issue at trial.
16/1/14
THEVARAJAH v RIORDAN [2014] EWCA Civ 14
The grant of relief from the sanction of being debarred from defending was overturned on appeal applying the robust approach in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013).
13/1/14
LONG v VALUE PROPERTIES [2014] EWHC
Applying the approach in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013), the court refused to grant relief from sanction for failure to file details of a CFA and success fee in accordance with Costs Practice Direction para 32.5.
20/12/13
HARRISON v BLACK HORSE LTD [2013] EWHC B28 (Costs)
Failure to serve notice of funding under CPR 44.15 in respect of a CFA was not a trivial or de minimis default. Applying the approach in Mitchell v News Group (2013) relief from sanction was refused.
18/12/13
CHAMBERS v BUCKINGHAMSHIRE HEALTHCARE NHS TRUST [2013] EWHC (QB)
Following the approach in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013), relief from sanction would not be given unless the party in default showed good reason for any delay and non-compliance.
10/10/13
BIFFA WASTE SERVICE LTD v DINLER [2013] EWHC 3582 (QB)
A judge had been wrong to give a personal injury claimant relief from the sanction of striking out for non-compliance with an unless order. The claimant had failed to explain numerous failures, including late service of witness statements, late payment of court fees and late service of the trial bundle which had caused the trial to be adjourned. The defendant’s appeal was allowed and the claim stood struck out.
© Copyright 2014 Neil Levy All Rights Reserved. Disclaimer