Home Group Ltd v Matrejek

Applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 require a structured but nuanced assessment. The court should first assess whether the breach is serious or significant, then consider why it occurred, and finally evaluate all the circumstances so as to deal justly with the application. A serious or significant breach without a good reason does not automatically require refusal. The factors concerning efficient, proportionate litigation and compliance with rules and orders must receive particular weight, but other circumstances may also justify relief. Appellate courts should interfere cautiously with case-management decisions involving the exercise of discretion.

A social housing provider’s possession claim was dismissed with costs after it failed to attend a directions hearing. The provider applied under CPR 3.9 for relief from the sanction and reinstatement of the claim. HHJ Lochrane granted relief, finding the breach non-trivial but considering that the order’s purpose had been misunderstood, that there was just about a reasonable excuse, and that reinstatement served the interests of justice. The tenant appealed, arguing that the judge had misapplied CPR 3.9 and considered irrelevant matters.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The decision to grant relief and reinstate the possession claim was within the judge’s discretion.
2. The court applied the clarified approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906. The judge must first identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the breach, then consider why it occurred, and finally evaluate all the circumstances so as to deal justly with the application.
3. The failure to attend the directions hearing was serious or significant, although not at the highest end of the scale. It was deliberate in the sense that the respondent decided not to attend, but the judge was entitled to find that the unclear purpose of an order made in the parties’ absence, together with the respondent’s attempts to contact the court and save costs, provided just about a reasonable excuse.
4. At the third stage, the judge was entitled to give particular weight to the matters identified in CPR 3.9, while also considering the overall position of the tenant’s case, the absence of prejudice to her, the interests of alleged victims of anti-social behaviour, and the limited loss of court time. The combination of those circumstances was capable of justifying relief, even though the breach was serious and significant.
5. The court rejected the challenge that irrelevant considerations had been taken into account or that CPR 3.9 had been misapplied. The decision was a case-management decision and, consistently with Mannion v Ginty [2012] EWCA Civ 1667, such a discretionary decision should not be lightly interfered with.

• Chelmsford County Court: HHJ Lochrane dismissed the possession claim with costs on 28 April 2014 after the claimant failed to attend a directions hearing.
• High Court (Queen’s Bench Division): relief from sanctions was granted and the claim reinstated on 9 June 2014. The tenant’s appeal was dismissed by Sweeney J.