Neil David Martin Jarvis & Anor v Sibner Capital Limited

Relief from sanctions may be refused where an appellant fails to comply with a clear deadline for filing an appeal bundle. The seriousness of the breach is assessed in light of the need for finality in litigation and the requirement that appeals be conducted expeditiously. A substantial delay, the need effectively to restart the appeal, the absence of a good reason, and continuing non-compliance may justify maintaining a strike-out. Litigants in person are not automatically excused from procedural requirements, particularly where they have litigation and appellate experience and access to legal assistance.

The appellants sought relief from sanctions, alternatively an order setting aside the strike-out or a retrospective extension of time. Their appeal had been struck out on 10 June 2025 because they had failed to file the required appeal bundle, including the lower court’s judgment, by 20 May 2025 and had not applied for an extension.

An appeal bundle was later filed, but it remained incomplete because it omitted the transcript of a hearing critical to one ground of appeal. The central issue was whether the appellants had shown sufficient grounds for relief from the procedural sanction.

1. Application refused. No relief from sanctions was granted, and the appeal remained struck out.
2. The court applied the Denton criteria. The breach was serious because the appeal had not been conducted expeditiously and relief would cause considerable further delay, effectively requiring the appeal to start again. Finality in litigation has particular importance in an appeal because the judgment and enforcement position remain uncertain while the appeal continues.
3. The appellants had received a clear issue letter explaining the filing requirements, the deadline, the method of seeking an extension, and the risk of strike-out. Their reliance on a subsequent court email was unpersuasive. That email concerned an earlier request for evidence relating to a stay of execution and did not displace the formal procedural directions.
4. The court found no good reason for the breach. Although one appellant had experienced depression, anxiety and stress, the evidence was thin and the condition was not shown to have prevented progress with the appeal. The appellants’ litigation and appellate experience, and their access to Direct Access counsel, were relevant circumstances.
5. The court was satisfied, just, that the failure appeared to involve deliberate prevarication. The sanction remained proportionate, particularly because the appeal bundle filed after the application was itself non-compliant.

The judgment records that the appellants had issued the appeal on 14 April 2025. A stay of execution was refused on 16 April 2025. The appeal was struck out on 10 June 2025 for failure to file the required bundle by 20 May 2025. This application for relief from sanctions was made on 17 June 2025 and was refused.