Court of Appeal: 'severe' sanctions upheld and no residual jurisdiction engaged (Patel v Mussa)

Table of contents

• Practical implications
• Summary of key findings
• Court details

Article summary

Dispute Resolution analysis: the Court of Appeal has upheld the lower court’s decision to strike out the claimant’s application for permission to appeal following the claimant’s non-compliance with case management directions to file a skeleton argument and an appeal bundle within the required time limits. The lower court had decided that, rather than adjourn the matter to another day, it would apply the Mitchell principles. The Court of Appeal found the order below, although ‘severe’, did not involve an improper exercise of the lower court's judicial discretion and was one which, in all the circumstances, could properly be made. This judgment is also of interest in the Court of Appeal’s consideration of whether its residual appellate jurisdiction (or ‘residual jurisdiction’) was engaged.