Lakatamia v SU

An application to extend time for appealing a committal order is governed by the three-stage approach applicable to relief from sanctions. The court assesses the seriousness and significance of the delay, the reasons for it, and all the circumstances.

Being unrepresented or assisted only by a McKenzie friend is not a good reason for non-compliance. The merits ordinarily carry little weight. They become significant where a brief examination shows that the proposed appeal is very strong or very weak. Imprisonment and the engagement of human rights do not themselves require an extension, provided the applicable time limit is neither too short nor enforced too rigorously.

The applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a High Court committal order made on 29 March 2019. He had been committed for multiple breaches of freezing, asset-disclosure and non-departure orders and remained in custody. His appellant's notice, due on 19 April 2019, was filed approximately four months late.

The applicant attributed the delay to the absence of legal representation and inability to pay the court fee. The proposed appeal principally challenged findings concerning the non-disclosure and dissipation of Monaco assets and an attempt to leave the jurisdiction. The court had to decide whether the three-stage approach governing relief from sanctions justified extending time.

1. Application refused. The four-month delay in filing the appellant's notice was serious and significant. The applicant supplied no good reason for it. The proposed grounds of appeal were also extremely weak.

2. The three-stage approach in Denton v T. H. White required the court to assess the seriousness and significance of the breach, consider why the default occurred, and evaluate all the circumstances. R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department established that the same approach applies to an application for an extension of time.

3. The applicant's decision to disinstruct his lawyers did not excuse the delay. A litigant in person, whether or not assisted by a McKenzie friend, must comply with procedural rules in the same way as a represented party. Nor was inability to pay the court fee established as a good reason. The applicant gave no explanation of any attempt to obtain the fee, although a later fee remission enabled filing within four days.

4. At the third stage, imprisonment engaged the applicant's human rights but did not compel an extension. A national legal system may impose time limits even where a conviction results in imprisonment, provided that the limits are neither too short nor too rigorously enforced. Ordinarily the merits have little bearing upon an extension. They may be significant where a brief examination shows that an appeal is very strong or very weak.

5. A brief examination demonstrated that the proposed appeal was extremely weak. The committal judge had found beyond reasonable doubt that the applicant held substantial beneficial interests in Monaco properties which he had failed to disclose. Any uncertainty about complete ownership did not undermine that finding. The challenge concerning evidence of the attempted departure was also weak: the essential facts were confirmed by affidavit, no cross-examination was sought, and leading counsel had raised no objection to the evidence's form.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Refused the application to extend time for appealing the committal order: [2019] EWCA Civ 1626.

2. High Court: Sir Michael Burton, sitting as a High Court judge, made a committal order on 29 March 2019 for multiple breaches of freezing, asset-disclosure and non-departure orders. No citation is stated.