The court was asked first whether the defendants had complied with an unless order made with respect to the disclosure of information required to be provided in aid and in order to ensure the proper release of a freezing order which had previously been made, and second whether, if there was such a failure, the … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: ChD 9 Aug 2013
Appeal against re-instatement of possession proceedings after failure to attend directions hearing Sweeney J  EWHC 441 (QB) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.9 Housing, Litigation Practice Updated: 28 December 2021; Ref: scu.543176
This appeal raises the following questions (i) whether a breach of the CPR has occurred here, (ii) if so, what is the applicable sanction, if any, for that breach, and (iii) whether relief from any such sanction should be granted. Barling J  EWHC 2981 (Ch) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.9 England and Wales Costs, … Continue reading Long v Value Properties Ltd and Another: ChD 30 Sep 2014
Application for relief from sanctions made pursuant to CPR 3.9(1) Henry Carr QC  EWHC 1878 (Ch) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.9(1) Litigation Practice Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526609
The commercial court will not encourage time wasting procedural applications. Leggatt J summarised the principles that should be applied on an application for relief from sanctions: ‘i) On an application for relief from a sanction under CPR 3.9, it is usually appropriate to start by considering the nature of the non-compliance. If the non-compliance can … Continue reading Summit Navigation Ltd and Another v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare Sa Ardaf Sa and Another: ComC 21 Feb 2014
Defendants appealed against an order allowing the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The relief sought had previously been refused by Hildyard J, so this was the respondents’ second application for the same relief. The defendants had, before the second application complied with the unless order. … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 2014
Application for extension of two days to service of particulars of claim. The defendants resisted saying that the court should apply sanctions against the claimant. The claimants applied for relief under rule 3.9. Held: The new rules were against a background where it was recognised that courts had been too ready to grant relief. The … Continue reading Raayan Al Iraq Co Ltd and Others v Trans Victory Marine Inc and Others: ComC 23 Aug 2013
The defendant had failed to comply in all respects with an ‘unless’ order. Held: The court gave relief under CPR 3.9 for two failures which the court described as ‘material in the sense that they were more than trivial’. They were ‘unintentional and minor failings in the course of diligently seeking to comply with the … Continue reading Wyche v Careforce Group Plc: ComC 25 Jul 2013
The court allowed the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. Andrew Sutcliffe QC  EWHC 3179 (Ch) Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.9 England and Wales Citing: See Also – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 9-Aug-2013 The court was asked first whether the defendants had complied … Continue reading Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: ChD 10 Oct 2013
The defamation claimant sought relief from sanctions imposed after a failure to comply with orders requiring him to discuss budgets and budgetary assumptions. Held: The claimant had failed to deliver the required costs budget in time, and any costs in the action beyond the court fees would be disallowed. Master McLoud  EWHC 2355 (QB) … Continue reading Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd: QBD 1 Aug 2013
Appeal from a decision relating to relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. The context is failure to serve witness statements within the time specified by a prior court order. Laws, Sullivan, Davis LJJ  EWCA Civ 506,  3 Costs LR 588,  CILL 3513 Bailii Civil Procedure Rules 3.9 England and Wales Costs Updated: … Continue reading Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties Sa and Another: CA 16 Apr 2014
rattan_ubsComC0314 The claimant had sought an order limiting the defendant’s costs after alleged non-compliance with directions, and failing to file a costs budget. Held: The application was rejected. The Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time wasting procedural points: ‘the claimant’s argument has not only increased the expense of this CMC … Continue reading Rattan v UBS Ag, London Branch: ComC 12 Mar 2014
The parties were embroiled in a company dispute with allegations of conduct prejudicial to minority shareholders. An application was now made for sanctions for a failure to comply with court directions. Held: Unless and until a higher Court has said that the approach in Robert is no longer to be followed, it was binding and … Continue reading Kaneria v Kaneria and Others: ChD 15 Apr 2014
The claimant’s case had been struck out after non-compliance with an order to file further particulars. His appeal was allowed by the EAT, and the School now itself appealed, saying that the employment judge had wrongly had felt obliged to have regard to the Civil Procedure Rules on striking cases out. Held: The school’s appeal … Continue reading St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary: CA 12 Nov 2009
In a case of any complexity, when an appeal court considered an application for leave to appeal which was filed out of time, it should have in mind the matters listed in the rules. It was not appropriate to use judge made checklists where one was provided in the rules: ‘[I]n cases where the arguments … Continue reading Sayers v Clarke Walker (A firm): CA 14 May 2002
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 changed, and the court is now to consider: ‘all the circumstances of the case, … Continue reading Venulum Property Investments Ltd v Space Architecture Ltd and Others: TCC 22 May 2013
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance: Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or significance of the breach. If it is not serious or substantial, the further steps may be taken less … Continue reading Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others: CA 4 Jul 2014
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very substantially the costs which might be made in his favour. Held: The appeal was refused. It was inherent … Continue reading Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd: CA 27 Nov 2013
The court considered the practice on claims for hire of a replacement car on credit terms after a road traffic accident. The defendant resisted paying for the credit where the claimant could have hired without a credit arrangement. The defendants also sought to bring new evidence of dishonesty in the system at issue. Held: Retrials … Continue reading Dickinson and Others v Tesco Plc and Others: CA 4 Feb 2013
The court considered a strike out application. Held: Although there might be many cases where the possibility or otherwise of a fair trial is highly important to the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9. it does not follow that where a fair trial is still possible, relief will necessarily be granted: ‘CPR 3.9 deals generally … Continue reading Hansom and others v E Rex Makin and Wright: CA 18 Dec 2003
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. . .
Application made pursuant to CPR 3.9 for relief from sanctions imposed under the rules, in this instance CPR rule 44.3B. . .
The claimants renewed their application for permission to appeal from an order granting an application made by the defendant, Talksport Ltd, to exclude certain evidence which the claimants appeared to wish to adduce at the trial of the action. Mr . .
The court considered the application of CPR 3.9(1) to a decision relating to the relief of a sanction.
Held: Lord Justice Brooke said: ‘It is essential for courts, exercising their discretion on an occasion like this, to consider each matter . .
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
The court considered whether it had jurisdiction to apply the Rules to extend time to appeal against discharge of an extradition request. The notice of appeal was not filed (or served) within seven days. Held: Latham LJ said: ‘I acknowledge the force of this argument. But it begs the question as to what power the … Continue reading Vilnius City, the District Court of v Barcys: Admn 22 Mar 2007
The claimant continued an action brought in her late husband’s name. The action had begun under the former rules. After the new rules came into effect, the action was automatically stayed, since no progress had been made for over a year. Her application to lift the stay was refused, and she appealed. Held: The automatic … Continue reading Woodhouse v Consignia Plc; Steliou v Compton: CA 7 Mar 2002
Appeal by a defendant, whose defence had been struck out for non-compliance with court orders, against the refusal of relief from that sanction pursuant to Civil Procedure Rule 3.9. The principal issues in this appeal were: i) whether, in assessing the seriousness of non-compliance with an ‘unless’ order, the court should have regard to the … Continue reading Oak Cash and Carry Ltd v British Gas Trading Ltd: CA 15 Mar 2016
‘The paying parties appeal against a decision of the High Court reversing a decision of the costs judge, whereby he declined to set aside his earlier order granting an extension of time for serving the points of dispute. The principal issues in this appeal are whether the costs judge was dealing with relief from sanctions … Continue reading Hallam Estates Ltd and Another v Baker: CA 19 May 2014
Anonymity in Court Proceedings – No two stage test XXX appealed against the refusal to make orders anonymising her name and redacting certain details from published judgments. The appeal raised a point about the proper approach to applications for anonymisation under CPR 39.2. She brought proceedings for judicial review of the Council’s housing allocation policy, … Continue reading XXX v Camden London Borough Council: CA 11 Nov 2020
Presumption in Favour of Open Proceedings There had been an unauthorised dissemination by the petitioner to third parties of the official shorthand writer’s notes of a nullity suit which had been heard in camera. An application was made for a committal for contempt. Held: The House equated the contempt to a breach of an injunction … Continue reading Scott v Scott: HL 5 May 1913
americhem_rakemTCC0614 Complaint was made that a costs estimate had been signed not by a solicitor, but by a costs draftsman. Held: The rules required the estimate to have been signed by a ‘senior legal representative’. A costs draftsman whose involvement in the matter was restricted to the preparation of the costs schedule was not such. … Continue reading Americhem Europe Ltd v Rakem Ltd: TCC 13 Jun 2014
Anonymity Not Necessary under CPR 3.92. Judgment on the Claimant’s application for an order under CPR 39.2(4) that her name be anonymised in these proceedings by the use of a cipher and that restrictions should be imposed on the reporting of her identity. She said that publication of her name would have adverse psychological factors. … Continue reading Imam, Regina (on The Application of) v The London Borough of Croydon (Anonymity request): Admn 26 Mar 2021
This is a continuation of the list of significant recent cases on our front page. As a most recent case pushes its way to the top, the last on teh front page falls into here. Newest significant cases.
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
An application had been made to set aside a possession order obtained by a social landlord and determined by a district judge who applied CPR3.1 (7), when setting the possession order aside. By the time the landlord’s appeal against that decision . .
The claimant complained of an irregularly obtained judgment. The defendant had obtained an amendment to a writ of sequestration in the course of a bitterly fought dispute bewteen the defendant and the owner of the claimant. The judge had found the . .
The claimant had issued proceedings in time, but then the limitation period expired before it was served, and in the meantime the limitation period had expired. The defendant appealed against an automatic extension of time for service granted to the . .
The claimant appealed against an order refusing an extension of time for service of her particulars of claim. She had made the application before the period expired.
Held: The rules made a clear distinction between applications made before . .
The court considered applications for relief from sanction under CPR 3.1(7).
Held: An application under CPR 3.1(7) usually requires a change of circumstances.
Considerations of finality, the undesirability of allowing litigants to have . .