Jin Gumbrell v YPG Pembroke Studios Ltd

An unless order must identify the required step with sufficient precision, particularly where non-compliance automatically triggers striking out. A litigant in person may comply by filing documents which supplement existing particulars of claim, rather than a new freestanding document, where the materials read together provide a concise statement of the facts relied on. The court’s subsequent acceptance of compliance and conduct of the case as proceeding may be highly relevant. Failure to verify a statement of case does not necessarily make it ineffective under CPR r 22.2(1)(a).

The appellant brought a county court claim against the respondent for unpaid quarterly rental payments said to arise under a sale and purchase contract. The claim was issued online, and the respondent defended it on the basis that another company was liable.

The County Court ordered the appellant to file and serve particulars of claim complying with CPR 16, attaching the contract and identifying the unpaid sums, with the claim to be struck out in default. The appellant sent the contract, a schedule identifying the contractual provisions and unpaid payments, and related documents. The court then gave directions for trial, but the respondent later argued that the order had not been complied with. The claim was held struck out, and that decision was upheld on appeal.

The central issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the documents, read with the original claim form, complied with the order.

Lord Justice Nugee gave the leading judgment, with Lord Justice Baker and Lady Justice Yip agreeing.

1. Leave to proceed. The appeal was a proceeding against a company in liquidation for which leave was required under s. 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986. The court had a broad discretion to do what was right and fair. Leave was appropriate because continuation would not confer priority in the liquidation and only the Court of Appeal could determine whether the judgment under appeal should stand.
2. Precision of unless orders. An order imposing automatic striking out must state the required step in sufficiently clear and precise language to leave the affected party in no doubt what must be done. This principle, illustrated by Abalian v Innous [1936] 2 All ER 834 and applied under the CPR in Devoy-Williams v Hugh Cartwright & Amin [2008] EWHC 2815 (Ch), has particular force where the party is a litigant in person.
3. Sufficient compliance. CPR r 16.4(1)(a) requires a concise statement of the facts relied on. In a contractual claim for money due, the essential matters are the contract, the payment obligation, the amount, the due date and non-payment. The claim form identified most of these matters, while the one-page sheet identified the relevant clauses, attached the contract, calculated the quarterly amount and listed the unpaid payments. Read together, the documents complied with the order.
4. The district judge’s subsequent directions for trial showed that she had accepted there was sufficient compliance. The respondent had an opportunity to challenge that conclusion but continued preparing for trial and negotiating settlement. In those circumstances, it would require unusual circumstances to conclude later that the claim had not remained on foot.
5. The court accepted, but did not need to decide, the established principle that breach of an unless order ordinarily activates the specified sanction automatically, subject to relief from sanctions: Marcan Shipping (London) Ltd v Kefalas [2007] EWCA Civ 463. It was unnecessary to decide whether the alleged breach could have been raised months later, or whether the supplementary sheet alone would have sufficed. The court also left open whether failure to verify the sheet was fatal, noting the effect of CPR r 22.2(1)(a).
6. The appeal was allowed. The order declaring the claim struck out and ordering costs against the appellant was set aside. The parties were invited to make written submissions on whether the judgment entered after acceptance of the Part 36 offer should be reinstated or the case remitted to the County Court.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division) [2026] EWCA Civ 44: allowed the appeal on compliance with the order, set aside the striking-out and costs aspects of the order below, and directed further submissions on reinstatement or remittal.
• County Court at Reading: DDJ Davies, by order dated 30 October 2023, held that the order had not been complied with, declared the claim struck out from 10 June 2022, set aside the judgment entered for the appellant and ordered costs against her.
• County Court at Reading: HHJ Murch, by order dated 5 August 2024, dismissed the appellant’s appeal on the compliance issue.