Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Membership Plans
  • Login
Updates and Commentary on Civil Procedure, by Gordon Exall, Barrister, Kings Chambers, Leeds, Manchester & Birmingham. 4-5 Gray's Inn Square, London.
Browse: Home » Peremptory orders
ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIMANT FAILED TO COMPLY PROPERLY WITH AN UNLESS ORDER FOR DETAILS OF FUNDING: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIMANT FAILED TO COMPLY PROPERLY WITH AN UNLESS ORDER FOR DETAILS OF FUNDING: DECISION UPHELD ON APPEAL

July 8, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

Here we look at a case where the Court of Appeal upheld a decision that the claimant had failed to comply with the terms of a peremptory order. The action was, therefore, struck out.  It is a salutary and important…

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 22: WHOLE BATCHES OF CASES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THE PARTICULARS WERE DEFICIENT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

THE CURRENT IMPORTANCE OF PLEADINGS 22: WHOLE BATCHES OF CASES STRUCK OUT BECAUSE THE PARTICULARS WERE DEFICIENT: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED

July 7, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

Here we are looking at a case where numerous actions brought by the claimant were struck out because the Particulars of Claim were wholly deficient.  They remained wholly deficient even after the court had made a peremptory order compelling the…

SECOND (AND THIRD) APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF THAT ARE, ESSENTIALLY,  FOR THE SAME THING NOT ALLOWED TO PROCEED: THE APPLICATIONS WERE ABUSIVE

SECOND (AND THIRD) APPLICATIONS FOR RELIEF THAT ARE, ESSENTIALLY, FOR THE SAME THING NOT ALLOWED TO PROCEED: THE APPLICATIONS WERE ABUSIVE

July 1, 2025 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Striking out

Here we are looking at a case where defendants, debarred from defending an action, made consecutive (and ultimately fruitless) applications to vary the orders that caused them to be debarred and several applications for relief from sanction.  The court was…

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

CASE STRUCK OUT FOR FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH UNLESS ORDER: APPLICATION TO ADJOURN TO ALLOW RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS APPLICATION REFUSED: DENTON CRITERIA CONSIDERED

December 3, 2024 · by gexall · in Adjournments, Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Case Management, Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Gladwin v RSM UK Restructuring Advisory LLP [2024] EWHC 3054 (Ch) ICC Judge Barber held that the claimant’s case was struck out because of a failure to comply with a peremptory order.  The judge refused the claimant’s application to…

COST BITES 188: MAKING A PEREMPTORY ORDER FOLLOWING A FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

COST BITES 188: MAKING A PEREMPTORY ORDER FOLLOWING A FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: THE NEED FOR THE RESPONDENT TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE

October 29, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil evidence, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders

In  Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor [2024] EWHC 2213 (Comm) HHJ Pelling KC found it was appropriate to make a peremptory order following the defendants’ failure to pay interlocutory costs orders.  (This decision was considered in Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor…

DEFENDANTS OBTAIN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: CPR 3.(2)(a) CONSIDERED

DEFENDANTS OBTAIN EXTRA TIME TO COMPLY WITH PEREMPTORY ORDER: CPR 3.(2)(a) CONSIDERED

October 22, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Costs, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders

In Ahmad v Ouajjou & Anor [2024] EWHC 2659 (Comm) Mr Justice Bryan granted the defendant an extension of time to comply with a peremptory order to pay costs.  The application was made “ahead of time”. CPR 3.9 did not…

CLAIMANT’S FAILURE TO PAY COSTS LEADS TO PEREMPTORY ORDER BEING MADE: PUT UP OR SHUT UP…

August 14, 2024 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders

In Ceto Shipping Corporation v Savory Shipping Inc [2024] EWHC 1897 (Comm) Mr Justice Butcher made a peremptory order following the claimant’s failure to pay costs that had been ordered in interlocutory applications and in other related proceedings. “In the…

HIGH COURT GRANTS RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER: IMPACT OF COVID CONSIDERED

HIGH COURT GRANTS RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER: IMPACT OF COVID CONSIDERED

April 8, 2021 · by gexall · in Applications, Avoiding negligence claims, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Finvest Holdings Sarl -v- Lovering [2021] 3WLUK 579 HHJ Pelling (sitting as a High Court Judge) granted a claimant relief from sanctions when the claimant failed to comply with a peremptory order.  There is a detailed discussion of the…

UNLESS ORDER MADE WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT PAID AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER FOR COSTS

UNLESS ORDER MADE WHEN THE CLAIMANT HAD NOT PAID AN INTERLOCUTORY ORDER FOR COSTS

March 1, 2021 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Striking out, Summary assessment,

In Junejo v New Vision TV Ltd [2021] EWHC 449 (QB) Deputy Master Hill QC made a peremptory order that the claimant pay an order for costs.  However that payment was to be by instalments.  There is a useful review…

SERVICE OF DEFENCE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (AND GRANTED)

SERVICE OF DEFENCE BY EMAIL NOT GOOD SERVICE: RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REQUIRED TO SET ASIDE JUDGMENT (AND GRANTED)

December 23, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Default judgment,, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Sanctions, Setting aside judgment

The judgment of Mr Justice Calver in Ipsum Capital Ltd v Lyall & Ors [2020] EWHC 3508 (Comm) shows the dangers of serving documents by email. The judge held that service of a defence by email was not good service…

CLAIMANT GIVEN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER (WITH NO FORMAL APPLICATION BEING MADE).

CLAIMANT GIVEN RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER (WITH NO FORMAL APPLICATION BEING MADE).

October 21, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Park v Hadi & Anor [2020] EWHC 2687 Mr Justice Freedman granted a defendant relief from sanctions in circumstances where there had been a breach of a peremptory order and no formal application had been made.   THE CASE…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS WOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (IF IT WAS NECESSARY) WHERE BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER WAS NOT SERIOUS OR SIGNIFICANT

September 10, 2020 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In  Kazakhstan Kagazy Plc & Ors v Zhunus & Ors [2020] EWHC 2431 (Comm) Mr Justice Henshaw held that a defendant had not breached a peremptory order and relief from sanctions was not required.  However he indicated that if there…

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST IF SOMEONE APPLIES  IN ADVANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER? HIGH COURT DECISION

WHAT IS THE APPROPRIATE TEST IF SOMEONE APPLIES IN ADVANCE TO EXTEND TIME TO COMPLY WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER? HIGH COURT DECISION

August 9, 2019 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd [2019] EWHC 2078 (TCC) Mr Alexander Nissen QC (sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge) considered the appropriate test to be applied when the court made a peremptory order and an application was…

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE "ACCEPTANCE" OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

NON COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: STRIKING OUT; LATE ATTEMPTS TO COMPLY; LATE “ACCEPTANCE” OF PART 36 OFFERS AND NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS: ALL LITIGATION LIFE IS HERE

October 25, 2018 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Case Management, Civil evidence, Civil Procedure, Disclosure, Members Content, Part 36, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Risks of litigation, Sanctions, Serving documents, Striking out

In Devoy-Williams -v- High Cartwright & Amin [2018] EWHC 2815 (Ch) Mrs Justice Falk upheld a decision that an action was struck out and that relief from sanctions should not be granted. It is a reminder (amongst other things)  of…

DEBARRED PARTY CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE AT TRIAL:  WHAT ROLE CAN A DEBARRED PARTY PLAY AT TRIAL?

DEBARRED PARTY CANNOT CROSS-EXAMINE AT TRIAL: WHAT ROLE CAN A DEBARRED PARTY PLAY AT TRIAL?

August 9, 2018 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Striking out

In Kliers v Schmerler & Anor [2018] EWHC 1350 (Ch) Mr M H Rosen QC (sitting as a  Deputy High Court Judge) refused the defendant’s application that it be allowed to cross-examine the claimant even after it had been debarred from…

FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS LEADS TO PEREMPTORY ORDER BEING MADE: PAY UP OR BE STRUCK OUT

FAILURE TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS LEADS TO PEREMPTORY ORDER BEING MADE: PAY UP OR BE STRUCK OUT

October 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Sanctions

In Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2017] EWHC 2424 (Comm) Sir Richard Field (sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court) made a peremptory order following the defendants’ failure to pay interlocutory costs.  The relevant defendants…

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: THE FULL JUDGMENT IN POWELL -v- WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

NON-COMPLIANCE WITH PEREMPTORY ORDERS: THE FULL JUDGMENT IN POWELL -v- WATFORD BOROUGH COUNCIL

September 23, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Conduct, Disclosure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Sanctions

I have written before about the judgment of Mr Justice Jay in Powell -v- Watford Borough Council [2017] EWHC 2283 (QB). The full transcript has now become available. It deals with an important point about the need to follow the…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS  FOLLOWING BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER:  APPLICATION REFUSED:  A WORKING HOLIDAY IS NO EXCUSE

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS FOLLOWING BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER: APPLICATION REFUSED: A WORKING HOLIDAY IS NO EXCUSE

September 7, 2017 · by gexall · in Civil Procedure, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In The Financial Conduct Authority v Da Vinci Invest Ltd & Ors [2017] EWHC 2220 (Ch) Mr Justice Snowden rejected a defendant’s application for relief from sanctions for breach of a peremptory order. It is unusual in that the court considered…

PREVENTING DEFENDANT FROM DEFENDING DAMAGES IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF ENFORCING PEREMPTORY ORDERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

PREVENTING DEFENDANT FROM DEFENDING DAMAGES IS AN APPROPRIATE MEANS OF ENFORCING PEREMPTORY ORDERS: COURT OF APPEAL DECISION

February 27, 2017 · by gexall · in Appeals, Damages, Members Content, Peremptory orders

 Workman -v- Forrester [2017] EWCA Civ 73 is an important example of the courts using peremptory orders in an attempt to secure compliance.  The Court of Appeal upheld a decision to make a peremptory order that allowed the claimants to…

RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED(AFTER THE TRIAL)

February 9, 2017 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions

In the judgment today in  Schenk -v- Cook [2017] EWHC 144 (QB) Mr Justice Green upheld an order refusing relief from sanctions. However the appeal was heard in unusual circumstances. The judge considered the application for relief from sanctions striking…

FAILURE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION IN WITNESS STATEMENT LEADS TO APPLICATION BEING STRUCK OUT: HIGH COURT DECISION TODAY

September 13, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Striking out, Uncategorized, Witness statements

Chief Master Marsh has had a busy day. This is the second decision today I am writing about. In  Wave Lending Ltd -v- Batra and SFM Legal Services Ltd [2016] EWHC 2238 (Ch) he considered whether a witness statement complied…

PEREMPTORY ORDERS, EXTENSIONS OF TIME AND WITNESS CREDIBILITY

May 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

In Suez Fortune Investments Ltd -v- Talbot Underwriting Ltd [2016]  EWHC 1085 (Comm) Mr Justice Flaux considered an application to extend time or vary a peremptory order. “I consider that a claimant in contumelious breach of Court Orders whose claim…

WHEN A PARTY FAILS TO PAY INTERLOCUTORY COSTS: MAKE A PEREMPTORY ORDER

May 3, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Assessment of Costs, Costs, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Uncategorized

In Peak Hotels -v- Tarek Investments Ltd [2016] EWHC 690 (Ch) Mrs Justice Asplin considered the appropriate approach when a party  has failed to pay an interlocutory costs order.  There is a succinct summary of the relevant case law. “If…

"IN TIME" APPLICATION TO EXTEND TIME FOR PEREMPTORY ORDER REFUSED: CLAIM STRUCK OUT

April 15, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Civil Procedure, Extensions of time, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Charles Bagot of Hardwicke Chambers for bringing my attention to the decision in Kranniqi -v- Watford Timber Company Ltd (District Judge Parfitt 13/04/2016). It is a working example of (i)the dangers of failing to comply with…

REVISITING COMPLIANCE WITH A PEREMPTORY ORDER AFTER TRIAL: LIES ARE FOUND OUT AND ACTION DISMISSED

March 10, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Striking out, Uncategorized

I am grateful to Jeff Turton of Weightmans for sending me a copy of the transcript in the case of Anward -v- Severn Trent Water Ltd (13th July 2015).  Abid Anwar – Full Judgment It raises an interesting and important point…

MONEY JUDGMENT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AFTER BREACH OF PEREMPTORY ORDER

February 16, 2016 · by gexall · in Appeals, Applications, Default judgment,, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Uncategorized

In Rubin -v- Parsons [2016] EWHC 237 (Ch) Mr Justice Peter Smith considered the effect of breach of peremptory order in a case where the applicants were claiming much more complex relief.  It shows that a much more calibrated approach…

NO RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS AFTER BREACH OF A PEREMPTORY ORDER: HIGH COURT DECISION CONSIDERED

January 18, 2016 · by gexall · in Applications, Members Content, Peremptory orders, Relief from sanctions, Security for Costs, Uncategorized

In Sinclair -V- Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) LLP [2015] EWHC 3888 (Comm) Mr Justice refused an application from relief from sanctions. (I am grateful to Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd for sending me a copy of the transcript). “The starting point is…

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Subscription notifies you of a new post, it does not give you access to members' content.

Join 35.2K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • MEMBER NEWS: NEW ADAPTATION TO ENSURE THAT YOU CAN CLICK STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THE POST YOU WANT
  • MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY “CONDUCT LITIGATION”: THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: “TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT”
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: “HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC”: SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES
  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO “CONDUCT” LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • COST BITES 290: BARRISTERS TAKE CARE: ANOTHER REASON THE DBAS WERE INVALID – FAILURE TO INCLUDE COUNSEL’S FEES IN THE EQUATION…

Top Posts

  • A DECISION OF PROFOUND PRACTICAL IMPORTANCE TO SOLICITORS: WHEN IS SOMEONE EMPLOYED BY A SOLICITOR ENTITLED TO "CONDUCT" LITIGATION? A HIGH COURT DECISION THAT WILL HAVE WIDESPREAD RAMIFICATIONS
  • MORE ABOUT WHO CAN PROPERLY "CONDUCT LITIGATION": THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LAW SOCIETY AND SOLICITORS REGULATION AUTHORITY: "TASKS MAY BE DELEGATED BUT CONDUCT OF THE LITIGATION MAY NOT"
  • COST BITES 289: INVALID DAMAGES BASED AGREEMENTS MEANT THAT THE APPELLANTS COULD NOT RECOVER £1.3 MILLION IN COSTS (A BAD DAY OUT FOR THE LAWYERS INVOLVED...)
  • MEMBER NEWS: NEW ADAPTATION TO ENSURE THAT YOU CAN CLICK STRAIGHT THROUGH TO THE POST YOU WANT
  • WITNESS EVIDENCE WEDNESDAY: "HIS EVIDENCE WAS FREQUENTLY AGGRESSIVE AND SARCASTIC": SOMETIMES WITNESSES DO NOT HELP THEMSELVES

Archives

Blogroll

  • Coronavirus: Guidance for lawyers and businesses
  • Fatal Accident Law
  • Personal injury: Liability and Damages

Books

  • Munkman & Exall on Damages for Personal Injuries and Death 15th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • Buntools (for preparing PDF Bundles)
  • Kings Chambers
  • Kings Chambers Costs & Litigation Funding
  • Kings Chambers Serious Injury
  • The Civil Procedure Rules
  • The National Archives Recently Published Judgments
  • The Senior Court Costs Office Guide 2023
  • Website of 4 – 5 Gray's Inn Square
  • www.Bailii.org

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Exall Legal Training, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2025. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission is strictly prohibited.
Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use.
To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Cookie Policy
  • Membership Terms and Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Advertising Policy
  • Copyright
  • Legal Disclaimer

Copyright © 2025 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by Big Yellow Workshop

 

Loading Comments...
 

You must be logged in to post a comment.