Conor McKnight v Chelsea Football Club Limited

An appeal against refusal of relief from sanctions is concerned with whether the lower court’s decision was wrong or unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity. A party’s failure, without proper justification, to comply with procedural rules does not itself infringe Article 6. Article 6 is not a general entitlement to have procedural defaults overlooked, nor does it require a court to protect a defaulting party from consequences in separate proceedings. A failure to allow a reply may constitute procedural error, but will not necessarily make the decision unjust where the remaining reasons provide a sufficient and independent basis. Reasons need identify the essential reasoning leading to the result, but need not address every factual matter or set out the law exhaustively.

The appellant, a former employee of Chelsea Football Club, appealed against Master Eastman’s order dated 18 May 2023. The Master refused permission to file a Defence out of time and entered judgment in default in Chelsea’s proceedings concerning alleged harassment and breach of contract.

The application for relief had been made several months late. The appellant relied on mental-health difficulties, Article 6, possible effects on related Employment Tribunal proceedings, and the Master’s failure to permit counsel a reply. The central issues were whether the discretion had been wrongly exercised, whether adequate reasons had been given, and whether the failure to allow a reply made the decision unjust.

1. Appeal dismissed. The Master’s refusal of relief from sanctions was neither wrong nor unjust because of serious procedural or other irregularity within CPR rule 52.21(3). The application was, on the material before the Master, hopeless.
2. The Master had considered the appellant’s witness statement, draft Defence, medical evidence and oral submissions. The breach was serious, there was no good reason for the delay, and the submissions directed to the third stage of the Denton guidance were unconvincing. The Master was entitled to refuse relief.
3. Article 6 did not alter that conclusion. Procedural rules may lawfully result in a party losing the opportunity to defend civil proceedings after an unjustified default. Article 6 was not a trump card requiring the court to overlook the default. Nor did it require the High Court to deny Chelsea the benefit of default judgment in order to protect the appellant from possible consequences in Employment Tribunal proceedings. In any event, the Tribunal reached its own factual findings on evidence heard over four days.
4. The Master should have allowed counsel for the appellant an opportunity to reply to Chelsea’s submissions. That was a procedural failing, and robust case management did not justify it. Nevertheless, the excised reasoning concerning the Employment Tribunal proceedings was freestanding, and the Master’s other reasons supplied a sufficient independent basis for the decision. The failing therefore did not make the decision unjust.
5. The Master gave adequate reasons. Reasons need explain why a party has won or lost and identify the essential reasoning in brief terms. They need not identify every factual matter or state the law exhaustively.
6. The appeal was concerned with the correctness of the Master’s order, not the merits of the appellant’s earlier grievances or the underlying Employment Tribunal dispute. The application was dismissed.

• High Court (King’s Bench Division): appeal against Master Eastman’s order dated 18 May 2023 dismissed.