Tag Archives: CPR 3.9

A “DISTURBING” APPROACH TO COMPLIANCE: STATE AGENCIES HAVE NO PREFERRED STATUS

The judgment of the Court of Appeal in BPP Holdings -v- The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2016] EWCA Civ 121, contains some observations in relation to compliance that are of general relevance.  Not least everyone litigating on behalf of a government agency should bear the clear warnings in mind. “I found the […]

LATE APPLICATIONS TO AMEND & WITNESS STATEMENTS DELIBERATELY NOT SERVED: THIS DOESN’T END WELL FOR THE DEFAULTING PARTY

In Birch -v- Beccanor Limited & Dixon [2016] EWHC 265 (Ch) Mr Justice Norris refused an application for late amendment. He also refused an application to adjourn in circumstances where the defendant had deliberately served witness evidence late. KEY POINTS The Court disallowed: The defendants’ application to adjourn the trial date. The defendant’s application to amend […]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS, “MATERIALITY” & CONSIDERING THE MERITS IN A DEFAULT JUDGMENT: APPEAL AGAINST REFUSAL OF RELIEF ALLOWED

In Joshi & Welch Limited -v- Tay Foods [2015] EWHC 3905 (QB) Mr Justice Green allowed an appeal where the judge a first instance refused to grant relief from sanctions.  Much centred on the definition of the word “material”.  The judge also considered the question of how far the court should consider the underlying merits […]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATIONS: 10 POINTS TO IMPROVE THE ODDS

It is now just over 18 months since the Denton decision. Cases in relation to relief from sanction are still being reported regularly.  It is clear that default remains a problem and an issue within the civil courts. Further it is equally clear that the Denton principles do not represent a “soft touch”. Applications for […]

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED: NO PERMISSION TO SERVE RESPONDENT’S NOTICE LATE

In Pipe -v- Spicerhaart Estate Agents Ltd [2016] EWHC 61 QB Mr Justice Sweeney refused permission to serve a Respondent’s notice late. “Against the background that this is a small claims case, the conduct of the Respondent in relation to the Respondent’s Notice (and also the provision of their skeleton argument at or around the […]

SUPREME SANCTIONS IN THE SUPREME COURT: NO SECOND BITE OF THE CHERRY

The judgment of the Supreme Court in Thevarajah -v- Riordan [2015] UKSC 78 has been long anticipated since it related to the law relating to sanctions. In fact it is a decision in relation to a very narrow issues.  The law relating to sanctions, and CPR 3.9 in particular, was not considered. The only speech […]

WAITING FOR LEGAL AID IS NOT A GOOD REASON FOR DELAY: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

In R (Kigen) -v- Secretary of State for the Home Department [2015] EWCA Civ 1286 the Court of Appeal stated that delay caused by waiting for the Legal Aid Agency may no longer be accepted as a good reason for the court to exercise its discretion. “…solicitors in general may have been under the impression […]