Civil Litigation Brief
Menu
  • Home
  • About
  • Copyright
  • Advertising Policy
  • Legal Disclaimer
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
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, 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, 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,, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 BEING MADE: PAY UP OR BE STRUCK OUT

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

October 3, 2017 · by gexall · in Costs, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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, 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,, 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, 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…

Copyright

© Gordon Exall, Civil Litigation Brief, 2013-2023. Unauthorised use and or duplication of the material contained on this blog without permission from this blog's author is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Gordon Exall and Civil Litigation Brief with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.

Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 32.7K other subscribers

Recent Posts

  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE…
  • CLAIMANTS’ SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT’S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • WEBINAR ON CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE COSTS: KING CHAMBERS EVENT: 7th DECEMBER 2023
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS – BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY’S COSTS:
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE

Top Posts & Pages

  • CLAIMANTS' SOLICITORS WERE ON NOTICE THAT AN EXPERT'S REPORTS COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON: THE ISSUE OF PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
  • THIS MAY (OR MAY NOT) BE THE FINAL CLAIM FORM CASE OF 2023: CLAIMANT MAKES FUNDAMENTAL MISTAKE AS TO SERVICE, DEFENDANTS FAIL TO NOTICE IN TIME: THERE IS MUCH TO LEARN HERE...
  • NEW YEAR NEW HOURLY RATES: INDEXED LINK UPLIFT OF RATES FROM 1st JANUARY 2024: SEE THEM HERE
  • COST BITES 125:JOCKEYING FOR POSITION: ALLEGATIONS OF CONDUCT INCREASING COSTS - BUT THERE WAS NO DEDUCTION FROM SUCCESSFUL PARTY'S COSTS:
  • GRIFFITHS -v- TUI: SUPREME COURT FINDS FOR THE CLAIMANT: THE TRIAL WAS UNFAIR: POINTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN PUT TO THE EXPERT

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 14th ed
  • The APIL Guide to Fatal Accidents 4th edition

Useful Links

  • 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

Archives

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

Copyright © 2023 Civil Litigation Brief

Powered by WordPress and Origin

 

Loading Comments...