Davis Solicitors LLP v Raja & Anor

Relief from sanctions requires the court to assess the seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for it, and all the circumstances of the case. Compliance with an appeal-bundle requirement is important because the bundle enables the court to manage the appeal effectively. A failure to lodge the bundle in breach of both a practice direction and an unless order is serious and significant where it continues until the relief hearing. A misunderstanding of the procedural rules is not a good reason. The court may consider the merits of the underlying appeal when assessing all the circumstances under rule 3.9.

The claimant solicitor sought relief from sanctions after its appeal against a county court judgment was automatically struck out for failure to lodge an appeal bundle by the deadline in an unless order. The Central London County Court dismissed the application. The claimant appealed to the High Court, arguing that the breach was insignificant, that the respondents had acted opportunistically in drawing it to the court’s attention, and that the judge had wrongly considered the merits of the underlying appeal.

1. The appeal was dismissed. The failure to lodge an appeal bundle breached paragraphs 6.3 and 6.4 of Practice Direction 52B and the unless order. The bundle had not been properly filed, and the claimant had not applied to set aside the unless order.
2. Applying the three-stage approach in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the breach was serious and significant. The appeal bundle was required to facilitate the orderly conduct of the appeal, including at the permission stage. The claimant’s continuing failure meant that the court remained materially disadvantaged.
3. The claimant’s explanations did not amount to a good reason. They demonstrated a continuing misunderstanding of the importance of the procedural requirements. The respondents’ letter drawing attention to the breach was not opportunistic or unreasonable.
4. In assessing all the circumstances under CPR rule 3.9, the judge was entitled to consider the apparent merits of the underlying appeal. He was also entitled to take account of the continuing breach, which remained unremedied more than five months after the deadline.

• High Court (Queen's Bench Division): appeal against the dismissal of relief from sanctions application dismissed.
• Central London County Court: HHJ Mitchell dismissed the application for relief from sanctions on 1 August 2014.
• Central London County Court: the claimant’s original appeal was struck out on 31 March 2014 after failure to comply with the unless order requiring an appeal bundle.
• Central London County Court: Deputy District Judge Parker gave judgment against the claimant on 13 December 2013.