Akcine Bendore Bankas Snoras v Yampolskaya

Relief from sanctions requires the court to consider three stages: the seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for it, and all the circumstances of the case. Failure to file an appeal bundle is ordinarily a serious and significant breach because procedural compliance supports the orderly conduct of appeals. The court may consider merits in an exceptional case where the applicant has a sufficiently strong case for summary judgment. In proceedings to register an EU judgment, however, the receiving court must respect the foreign court’s determination and cannot review its substance. A sophisticated litigant’s failure to read clear court documents, or to obtain available advice, will generally provide an inadequate explanation for default.

The claimant sought registration in England of two Lithuanian judgments against the second defendant for approximately £10 million, plus interest and costs, under Council Regulation 44/2001. The second defendant appealed the registration order but failed to file the required appeal bundle. An unless order was made, and the appeal was struck out when she again failed to comply.

She applied under CPR rule 3.9 for relief from that sanction. The central issues were the seriousness of the default, the adequacy of her explanation, and whether the merits of her challenge to the Lithuanian judgments justified relief.

Application dismissed. The applicant was not granted relief from the sanction striking out her appeal.

1. The applicable approach under CPR rule 3.9 was the three-stage test identified in Denton v TH White Limited [2014] EWCA (Civ) 906: assess the seriousness and significance of the breach; identify why it occurred; and evaluate all the circumstances so as to deal justly with the application.
2. Failure to file an appeal bundle was a serious and significant breach. The bundle is important to the orderly conduct and timetabling of appeals, even if the judge will not read it immediately. The context strengthened that conclusion because registration of a foreign judgment under Council Regulation 44/2001 was intended to be swift, efficient and substantially automatic.
3. The applicant’s explanation was inadequate. She had failed to read clear court documents, relied on her husband who also misunderstood them, and did not obtain available legal advice. Although impecunience, lack of representation and language difficulties may be relevant, litigants in person are not all in the same position. This applicant was sophisticated and had sufficient resources to protect her interests.
4. Ordinarily the court should not assess the underlying merits when deciding relief from sanctions, as explained in Global Torch Limited v Apex Global Management Limited (No.2) [2014] UKSC 64. An exception may arise where a party has a strong enough case for summary judgment. That exception applied in principle here, but the merits gave the applicant no assistance: under Article 36 of the Judgments Regulation the English court could not review the substance of the Lithuanian judgments, and the Lithuanian courts had already considered the authority of the lawyers acting for her.
5. Any later success in Lithuania could potentially be raised in connection with enforcement. The court expressed no view on any future application for a stay of enforcement. The application for relief therefore failed.

Not stated in the judgment.