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 that courts go systematically through the matters listed when an application is made for the exercise of the court’s discretion under s 33 of the Limitation Act 1980.’


Lord Justice Brooke


Unreported, 2 March 2000, CCRTI 99/1245/B1


Civil Procedure Rules 3.9(1), Limitation Act 1980


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedR 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. . .
CitedSt 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 11 June 2022; Ref: scu.237743