Case management compliance and relief from sanctions—2016 in review [Archived]
Case management compliance and relief from sanctions—2016 in review [Archived]

The following Dispute Resolution guidance note provides comprehensive and up to date legal information covering:

  • Case management compliance and relief from sanctions—2016 in review [Archived]
  • Compliance and relief from sanctions cases 2016—what do you need to know?
  • Delay and applications for relief
  • Acting proportionately and justly
  • Merits of the substantive action
  • Unless orders

ARCHIVED: this archived Practice Note is not maintained and is for background information purposes only. Further, some of the links may not direct you to the provisions as at the date the guidance in this Practice Note was published.

Compliance and relief from sanctions cases 2016—what do you need to know?

Although 2016 seems to have had fewer key decisions on non-compliance and relief from sanctions than 2015, perhaps indicating that practitioners are beginning to develop a better understanding from existing authorities on the current formation of CPR 3.9(1) of the court's likely attitude to non-compliance and applications for relief, there has still been a steady stream of them.

We have pulled out a number of themes in some of this year's key decisions on compliance and relief from sanctions, including:

  1. the importance of acting promptly (British Gas v Oak Cash & Carry and Gentry v Miller)—see below

  2. proportionality and justness (McTear v Engelhard, Gopee v Barons Finance and Zumax Nigeria v FCMB)—see below

  3. relevance of the substantive merits (Judge Sykes Frixou v Bhabra, Sloutsker v Romanova and Mukhtar v Thapen)—see below

  4. dealing with unless orders (British Gas v Oak Cash & Carry, Christie v Magnet Ltd, Wave Lending v Batra and SFM Legal Services and Eaglesham v MOD)—see below

Note: 2016 also seems to have seen an increase in applications for