Click the case name for better results:

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. Nevertheless, the rules listed several matters to be considered, and the judge must apply his mind … Continue reading R C Residuals Ltd (formerly Regent Chemicals Ltd) v Linton Fuel Oils Ltd: CA 2 May 2002

Patterson (The Trustee In Bankruptcy of George Spencer) v Spencer and Others: ChD 17 Jun 2014

Application for relief from sanctions made pursuant to CPR 3.9(1) Judges: Henry Carr QC Citations: [2014] EWHC 1878 (Ch) Links: Bailii Statutes: Civil Procedure Rules 3.9(1) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Litigation Practice Updated: 24 August 2022; Ref: scu.526609

Irvine and Another v Talksport Ltd: CA 18 Jan 2002

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 Irvine, a famous racing driver, talked of the defendant’s use of his image for advertising … Continue reading Irvine and Another v Talksport Ltd: CA 18 Jan 2002

Chiu and Others v Waitrose Ltd and Others: TCC 25 May 2011

A defendant sought relief from sanctions for failing to comply with the requirements of an unless order. ‘The application raises the question of the extent to which the Court will grant such relief when a party has failed to comply with a consent order so that the sanction for failure to comply has been imposed … Continue reading Chiu and Others v Waitrose Ltd and Others: TCC 25 May 2011

Bansal v Cheema: CA 2 Mar 2000

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 listed under CPR 3.9(1) systematically in the same way as it is now well known … Continue reading Bansal v Cheema: CA 2 Mar 2000

Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others: CA 4 Jul 2014

(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

Robert v Momentum Services Ltd: CA 11 Feb 2003

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 time expired and those made afterwards. For the latter the rules laid down a checklist. It was … Continue reading Robert v Momentum Services Ltd: CA 11 Feb 2003

St Albans Girls School and Another v Neary: CA 12 Nov 2009

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