Priti Patel v Nicholas O'Sullivan & Ors

An appellate court may intervene in a case-management discretion where there is an error of principle or the decision falls outside the permissible range. Relief from sanctions requires application of the three-stage test in Denton, including consideration of seriousness, reasons for default and all the circumstances. A protected party’s incapacity does not itself explain a litigation friend’s failure to comply with directions. However, case management must remain proportionate. Where signed and verified particulars of claim contain the factual case, they may be directed to stand as a witness statement if that causes no material prejudice and avoids an unnecessarily severe result. Summary judgment is inappropriate where the claim has a realistic prospect of success or where overlapping factual issues are shortly to be tried.

The appellant challenged the July 2020 will of her late mother and sought probate of an earlier June 2020 will. The proceedings were managed alongside a Part 8 claim concerning administration of the estate and alleged loans. The District Judge refused a stay and relief from sanctions, debarred the appellant from relying on most evidence, summarily dismissed the validity claim, applied the will’s no-contest clause, and ordered indemnity costs.

The appeal concerned the refusal of a stay and extension of time, the debarring and summary judgment orders, the relationship between the Part 7 and Part 8 issues, and the costs order.

1. Stay. The refusal of a stay was a discretionary decision. The Judge was entitled to consider the parties’ conduct, the limited weight reasonably attached to Dr Prasad’s reports, and the respondents’ interest in prompt determination. No appealable error or unreasonable exercise of discretion was shown.
2. Relief from sanctions. The principles in Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506 required an application of CPR r 3.9 to permission sought under CPR r 32.10. The same applied to a late application for permission to rely on expert evidence under CPR r 35.4(1). Applying Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, the breaches were serious, no good reason had been established, and the wider circumstances did not justify the requested extension.
3. Nevertheless, the Judge had not considered directing that the signed and verified particulars of claim stand as the appellant’s witness statement. That course introduced no new material, caused no material prejudice, preserved the trial of all issues, and avoided the stark consequence of summarily determining a potentially arguable challenge to the will. The order was therefore varied so that the particulars of claim stood as the witness statement. The appellant could rely on it as hearsay evidence and give oral evidence concerning its contents. She remained debarred from calling other witnesses and from applying to rely on expert evidence.
4. Summary judgment. The summary judgment and consequential costs order were set aside. There was sufficient material to show a realistic, though not necessarily strong, prospect of success. Issues concerning the alleged loans, the unusual no-contest clause, the deceased’s understanding, and her poor health were potentially relevant to knowledge and approval and undue influence. There was also a compelling reason under CPR r 24.3 to determine the validity claim at the imminent trial rather than by summary disposal.
5. The indemnity costs order relating to the respondents’ application was upheld. The appeal was allowed in part, with the stay refusal and that costs order dismissed.

• Chancery Appeals (ChD): The appeal from the order of District Judge Bayoumi dated 30 May 2025 was allowed in part. The stay refusal and paragraph 9 indemnity costs order were upheld; the evidence directions were varied; summary judgment and the consequential costs order were set aside.
• District Judge Bayoumi: Refused a stay and relief from sanctions, made debarring orders, summarily dismissed the will-validity claim, applied the no-contest clause, and made costs orders.