Couper & Ors v Albion Properties Ltd & Ors

Relief from sanctions requires a structured assessment of the seriousness and significance of the breach, the reason for default, and all the circumstances of the case. A serious and prolonged failure, attributable to the applicant and causing substantial prejudice, may justify refusal of an extension and striking out an appeal.

An extended civil restraint order may be made where a party has persistently issued applications that are totally without merit. A threshold of three such applications is appropriate, and the jurisdiction may extend to non-parties.

The judgment concerned enforcement of the court’s previous orders following the dismissal of the claimants’ substantive claims in the Main Judgment, [2013] EWHC 2993 (Ch). Mr Couper sought to appeal against Master Teverson’s enforcement order of 3 December 2014, but lodged the required appeal bundle more than 18 months late. He also pursued several applications concerning stays, property, documents and access.

The Port of London Authority and the High Court Enforcement Officer sought revised enforcement directions and an extended civil restraint order against Mr and Mrs Couper. The issues included whether the appeal should proceed, whether the further applications had merit, and whether the statutory threshold for an extended civil restraint order had been met.

1. The court set aside the order extending time for Mr Couper to appeal against Master Teverson’s order. The extension had been obtained by misrepresentation concerning the alleged seizure of his legal papers. The court considered that it could set aside the order of its own motion if necessary.

2. Mr Couper’s appeal bundle was lodged more than 18 months late. Applying the three-stage approach in Denton v T.H. White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3296, the breach was serious and significant, the default was solely attributable to Mr Couper, and the delay caused substantial prejudice to the Port of London Authority. The court therefore refused an extension of time and relief from sanction under Civil Procedure Rules 1998, rule 3.9.

3. The appeal was struck out for failure to comply with the order requiring the appeal bundle. In any event, permission to appeal on the merits was refused because the grounds did not disclose a real prospect of showing that Master Teverson had improperly exercised his discretion.

4. The remaining applications pursued by Mr Couper were dismissed. No adequate legal basis had been identified for the requested stays, release of goods, delivery of documents or supervised access. The court also confirmed that exemption of tools and goods was governed by regulation 4 of the Taking Control of Goods Regulations 2013, subject to the aggregate value limit stated there.

5. Under rule 3.11 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998 and paragraph 3.1 of Practice Direction 3C – Civil Restraint Orders, an extended civil restraint order was appropriate where the parties had persistently made applications totally without merit. Applying Connah v Plymouth Hospitals NHS Trust [2006] EWCA Civ 1616, the threshold of three such applications was met. The order could properly be made against Mr and Mrs Couper jointly, including in circumstances where the relevant conduct involved non-parties.

6. The court considered revised enforcement directions appropriate and would hear the parties on their precise wording and timing.

The judgment describes earlier proceedings and applications arising from the Main Judgment and Main Order, including refusals of permission to appeal and interlocutory enforcement orders. This court set aside the extension of time, struck out Mr Couper’s appeal, refused permission on the merits, dismissed the outstanding applications and granted an extended civil restraint order.