Santander PLC v Anthony Harris

An application to extend time for filing an appeal notice is treated as an application for relief from sanctions. The court applies a three-stage approach: assess the seriousness and significance of the default, identify why it occurred, and evaluate all the circumstances, including efficient and proportionate litigation and compliance with court rules. Litigants in person receive no general dispensation from procedural time limits. Alleged fraud does not itself disapply the time limit for appealing. The apparent merits of the proposed appeal may be considered, but the court need not determine permission to appeal.

The claimant mortgagee obtained possession and money judgment in the County Court at Reading. The order followed findings that mortgage arrears included sums paid to protect the mortgagee’s security after section 146 notices based on judgments obtained by the management company.

The defendant sought to appeal out of time, relying on alleged fresh evidence, fraud, health difficulties, the pandemic and competing litigation. Sir Stephen Stewart refused an extension of time on 19 September 2023. The defendant applied to set aside that order and sought an extension of time.

1. Application dismissed. The order refusing an extension of time was upheld. The delay was treated, on the favourable assumption adopted by the court, as 14 months. This was a serious and significant breach of the 21-day time limit.
2. Under R(Hysaj) v The Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, an application to extend time for filing an appellant’s notice is treated as an application for relief from sanctions and is determined by the structured three-stage approach in Denton [2014] EWCA Civ 906: seriousness and significance; the reason for default; and all the circumstances, including CPR 3.9(1).
3. The approach applies equally to litigants in person, as confirmed in Lakatamia [2019] EWCA Civ 1626. Lack of legal representation is not, by itself, a good reason for delay.
4. The alleged fresh evidence was available before judgment and did not explain the delay. The defendant had been able to conduct other litigation and had chosen to prioritise it. The need for efficient and proportionate litigation and compliance with procedural rules carried particular importance.
5. An allegation of fraud does not remove the time limit under CPR 52.12. Fraud concerning third parties could be relevant to an extension application, but the underlying judgments remained valid unless set aside. The proposed grounds lacked clear and obvious merit against the mortgagee.
6. An informal application for a stay of enforcement was not granted. Any stay application should be made properly to the County Court dealing with enforcement.

• High Court (King's Bench Division): Sir Stephen Stewart refused an extension of time on 19 September 2023. The defendant applied to set aside that order.
• County Court at Reading: HHJ Melissa Clarke made the possession and money judgment order on 20 December 2021.