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 ponderously. Secondly it should ask how the failure arose. It should then go on to evaluate ‘all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable [the court] to deal justly with the application including’ the two factors mentioned in rule 3.9(1)(a)(b).
‘Litigation cannot be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost without (a) fostering a culture of compliance with rules, practice directions and court orders, and (b) cooperation between the parties and their lawyers. This applies as much to litigation undertaken by litigants in person as it does to others. This was part of the foundation of the Jackson report. Nor should it be overlooked that CPR rule 1.3 provides that ‘the parties are required to help the court to further the overriding objective’. Parties who opportunistically and unreasonably oppose applications for relief from sanctions take up court time and act in breach of this obligation.’

Lord Dyson MR, Jackson, Vos LJJ
[2014] WLR(D) 299, [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] BLR 547, [2014] 4 Costs LR 752, [2014] CP Rep 40, [2014] 1 WLR 3926, 154 Con LR 1
WLRD, Bailii
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9(1)
England and Wales
Cited by:
CitedAvonwick Holdings Ltd v Webinvest Ltd and Another ChD 10-Oct-2014
Application by the claimant that certain correspondence between the parties and their solicitors in April-May 2014 should be admissible as evidence, notwithstanding that most of it was headed ‘without prejudice and subject to contract’. The . .
CitedLachaux v Independent Print Ltd and Others QBD 29-Jun-2015
Orders allowing extension of time for service of the Particulars of Claim. . .
CitedThevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
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 . .
CitedBPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
CitedBarton v Wright Hassal Llp SC 21-Feb-2018
The claimant litigant in person purported to serve his statement of claim by email, but had not first sought the defendant’s agreement as required. The solicitors allowed the limitation period to expire without acknowledging service. The claimant . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 01 November 2021; Ref: scu.533784