Tibbles v SIG Plc (T/A Asphaltic Roofing Supplies): CA 26 Apr 2012

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 two bites at the cherry and the need to avoid undermining the concept of appeal all required a principled curtailment of an otherwise apparently open discretion. The discretion might be appropriately exercised normally only (i) where there had been a material change of circumstances since the order was made; (ii) where the facts on which the original decision was made had been misstated; or (iii) where there had been a manifest mistake on the part of the judge in formulating the order. The court emphasised that the application must be made promptly.


Rix, Etherton, Lewison LJJ


[2012] EWCA Civ 518, [2012] 4 All ER 259, [2012] CP Rep 32, [2012] 1 WLR 2591




Civil Procedure Rules 3.1(7)


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(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 . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.453007