Winchester Park Limited v 1 Palace Gate Freehold Limited

An appellate court will interfere with a case-management discretion only where the judge misdirected himself, considered irrelevant matters, overlooked relevant matters, or reached a decision outside the generous ambit of reasonable disagreement.

In an application for relief from sanctions, repeated and serious disclosure failures may justify striking out a defence where they undermine trial fairness. Alternative measures such as an adjournment, adverse inferences or costs orders need not be preferred if they would inadequately protect the integrity of the trial process.

A declaration following strike-out is not automatic. The court must still be satisfied on the evidence that it is proper to grant it.

The claimant represented tenants seeking collective enfranchisement of 1 Palace Gate under the Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993. The defendant’s case depended on whether Unit 6 was used commercially or residentially.

Following repeated disclosure failures, HHJ Parfitt refused relief from sanction, struck out the defence and granted the declaration sought. The defendant appealed, challenging the exercise of discretion and seeking to adduce fresh evidence. The issues included the application of the Denton test, admission of fresh evidence and whether the declaration had been granted automatically.

1. Appeal dismissed. The challenge concerned the exercise of discretion in refusing relief from sanction. The appeal proceeded on the basis that relevant documents remained undisclosed.
2. The lower judge correctly applied CPR rule 3.9. The disclosure failures were serious because the central issue depended on documents principally within the defendant’s control, repeated opportunities to comply had been given, the trial was imminent, and the court lacked confidence in the reliability of the disclosure process.
3. The judge was entitled to prioritise efficient and proportionate litigation and enforcement of court orders. An adjournment, cross-examination, adverse inferences or costs orders could reasonably be rejected as inadequate responses to the risk of an unfair trial.
4. Fresh evidence was refused under CPR rule 52.21(2). Applying Ladd v Marshall, the evidence could and should have been produced below, particularly because it concerned information expressly required by the disclosure order.
5. The proposed challenge to the declaration was not within Ground 3 and had no real prospect of success. The declaration was not automatic, but HHJ Parfitt had considered the application and evidence and was entitled to grant it.

• High Court, Chancery Appeals: HHJ Parfitt’s refusal of relief from sanction, striking out of the defence and grant of the declaration were upheld. The appeal was dismissed.