Thevarajah v Riordan and Others: CA 16 Jan 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.
Held: The judge had been wrong to rehear the application on its merits. As Hildyard J had already rejected the appellants’ first relief application, CPR 3.1(7) applied and the Deputy Judge could not properly have acceded to the second relief application unless there had been ‘a material change of circumstances’ since Hildyard J’s decision, and there had been no such change.

Richards, Aikens, Davis LJJ
[2014] EWCA Civ 14, [2014] CP Rep 19, [2014] 1 Costs LR 163
Civil Procedure Rules 3.9
England and Wales
Appeal fromThevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 10-Oct-2013
The court allowed the application of the first, second and fourth respondents for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9. . .
See AlsoThevarajah v Riordan and Others ChD 9-Aug-2013
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 . .
CitedTarn Insurance Services Ltd v Kirby and others CA 27-Jan-2009
Claim by company in administration against former directors for excess payments alleged to have been taken by them. There was now alleged a wilful failure to comply wih court orders for disclosure..
Held: Once non-compliance with an unless . .

Cited by:
See AlsoThevarajah v Riordan and Others CA 4-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the judge at first instance had been right to attribute an agreement which he had not made to the defendants.
Held: The defendants were liable to pay 2.205 million pounds. . .
Appeal fromThevarajah 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 . .
See AlsoThevarajah and Another v Riordan and Others ChD 21-Mar-2014
The parties disputed the arrangements for the intended acquisition by the Claimant of three properties, or more accurately of all or part of the shares in their owning companies. Following a failure to comply with ‘unless’ orders fr disclsure of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 29 November 2021; Ref: scu.521037