Crayford Estates Ltd v Dhillon

An extension of time under an unless order requires a party to show proper and compelling reasons for the delay, supported by a full and particularised explanation of the relevant communications and steps taken. The court must balance compliance with rules and orders, prompt progress, fairness to the respondent, and the desirability of determining disputes on their merits. Where the evidence does not establish diligent and prompt conduct, the extension may be refused and the appeal struck out.

Crayford Estates sought permission to appeal out of time against orders concerning a vesting order in favour of Simer Dhillon. The court had required transcripts to be filed by an unless date and later granted a limited extension, warning that any further extension would require compelling circumstances and detailed evidence explaining communications with the transcribers and courts.

A further extension was granted by David Richards J without notice to the respondent. The matter was revisited after the lack of notice and supporting evidence raised fairness concerns. The central issue was whether Crayford Estates had shown sufficient reason for its delay and compliance with the conditions previously imposed.

1. The application for a further extension of time was refused. The appeal therefore stood as struck out.
2. The court was entitled, in the interests of fairness, to revisit the substance of the extension application granted without notice to the respondent and without the relevant orders and evidence being shown to the judge.
3. The previous order required any further application to demonstrate the most compelling circumstances and to provide a very full and particularised explanation of all communications with the transcribers and courts. The evidence did not meet that requirement. It omitted relevant communications and did not show that Crayford Estates had taken all proper and appropriate steps to obtain the transcripts promptly.
4. The explanation for the original delay was also unsatisfactory. The stated reason for waiting to request transcripts was difficult to reconcile with the appellant’s notice, and in any event did not amount to a proper and compelling reason.
5. Applying the overriding objective, the court balanced the need for matters to be dealt with properly, promptly and in accordance with court rules and orders against the desirability of a hearing on the merits. The balance clearly favoured refusing the extension.
6. Crayford Estates was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the hearing and of the appeal.

The judgment records earlier orders made by Master Moncaster and Master Marsh concerning the vesting order and subsequent attempts to set it aside. It also records that David Richards J granted a further extension of time without notice to the respondent. The present court revisited that extension, refused a further extension, and held that the appeal stood as struck out.