Fons HF v Corporal Ltd

Under the amended Civil Procedure Rules, the court must enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders as part of dealing with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Breach is itself a failure to comply with the overriding objective and may attract severe sanctions. Extensions of time remain discretionary, but the court must consider the seriousness and consequences of the default, including wasted court resources and the need for evidence on live issues. Where an extension is granted, failure to comply may justify debarring the defaulting party from relying on the evidence.

The claimant brought proceedings against Corporal Ltd and Pillar Securitisation. Earlier case management orders required the parties to serve witness statements by specified dates. The claimant was ready to serve statements, but the second defendant had not prepared evidence, despite needing evidence on whether it was entitled to the benefit of a legal charge. Issues concerning estoppel and rectification were no longer pursued, although the case remained listed with a five-day trial estimate.

The court had to decide whether, and to what extent, to extend time for serving witness statements.

1. The court granted an extension of time for compliance with the order of District Judge Matharu until 4 pm on the following day. Any party failing to comply would be debarred from relying on evidence at trial.
2. Rule 1.1(2)(f) of the amended Civil Procedure Rules 1998 requires the court, so far as practicable, to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. The court must therefore take a substantially stricter view of procedural default.
3. Failure to comply with a rule, direction or order is itself a breach of the overriding objective and is likely to result in severe sanctions. The court must consider the effect of default on the efficient use of court resources, particularly where non-compliance has prevented the trial estimate from being revised and risks wasting sitting days.
4. Both parties were in breach of the order because it required each party to serve its intended evidence. The defendants’ breach was more serious because the second defendant had filed no evidence and still needed evidence on a live issue.
5. An extension was nevertheless justified because the amended procedural regime had only recently come into effect and the period since the agreed final extension was relatively short. The court emphasised that family commitments of a solicitor did not provide a satisfactory reason for further delay where a substantial practice could arrange alternative representation.