The court considered the issue of the use of a strike out as a sanction for non-compliance with a court order.
Held: The approach of the court in a case considering relief for sanctions – exemplified by RC Residuals v Linton Fuel was bound to be different from that in Arrow Nominees v Blackledge, as there was no ‘unless’ order in the latter case. Her Ladyship stated: ‘The fact that an ‘unless’ order has been made inevitably means that there is an additional factor to consider. Had there been a relevant order in Arrow Nominees, that, too, would have been a factor. It is only a factor to be weighed in the balance. Moreover, compliance with orders of the court is not a question of judicial amore propre. It goes to the essence of the rule of law that parties subject to the court’s jurisdiction . . should comply with the court’s orders. The gravity of the matter of non-compliance is plainly increased where the non-compliance results from a conscious decision, as in this case. It follows, as Ward LJ said in High Tech Limited v Coventry City Council [1997] 1WLR 1666 at 1674 to 1675, that, ‘If a party intentionally or deliberately . . flouts the order, he can expect no mercy’. He has to persuade the court that in all the circumstances the injustice to him outweighs the interests of the administration of justice and the injury to the other party.’
Judges:
Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Sir William Aldous
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 827
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Gluckstein v Barnes; Re Olympia Ltd, ex parte Gluckstein HL 1900
Directors’ hidden profits disclosable
Promoters of a company had acquired a property intending its resale through the sale of shares in the company. In doing so the original directors made a substantial profit which they did not disclose (though it was discoverable). The company became . .
Cited – R C Residuals Ltd (formerly Regent Chemicals Ltd) v Linton Fuel Oils Ltd CA 2-May-2002
The applicant had failed to comply with an unless order, delivering his expert evidence some 20 minutes late. The evidence had not been allowed. They appealed.
Held: The claim was re-instated. This was not the first occasion of default. . .
See Also – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and others v Stolzenberg CA 15-Jun-2001
Application for leave to appeal, for an extension of time to appeal, and for a stay of execution pending the hearing of the appeal. . .
Appeal from – CIBC Mellon Trust Company and Others v Stolzenberg and Others ChD 3-Feb-2003
Application to set aside judgments entered on failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders.
Held: Etherton J said: ‘The Court of Appeal has laid down guidance as to the approach of the Court when considering an application for relief from sanctions . .
Cited by:
Cited – Tisson v Telewest Communications Group Ltd EAT 19-Feb-2008
The claimant’s claim had been struck out for his failure to comply with an order to serve a list of documents.
Held: The appeal failed. The principles applied under the Civil Procedure Rules should be applied in Employment Tribunals. The . .
See Also – Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others TCC 22-May-2013
The claimant sought an extension of time to serve the Particulars of Claim. The solicitors said that they had misread the relevant Rules.
Held: The solicitors had acted on the basis of the former practice, but the rules had been substantially . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Torts – Other, Jurisdiction, Litigation Practice
Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.198474
