The process for claiming relief from forfeiture varies depending on the nature of the breach. This Practice Note covers relief against forfeiture for rent arrears. For information in respect of claiming relief for any other breach, see Practice Note: Relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant. Which interests does relief from forfeiture apply to? As well as leases, relief is available for some other property rights. See the guidance in Practice Note: Relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant—Which interests does relief from forfeiture apply to? Jurisdiction The courts have a historic, inherent jurisdiction to grant relief from forfeiture in respect of non-payment of rent. This equitable jurisdiction has been replaced with statutory jurisdiction in some respects, including for breaches other than non-payment of rent (see Practice Note: Relief from forfeiture for breach of covenant—Jurisdiction to grant relief in respect of breaches of covenant (other than non-payment of rent)). For further information, see Commentary: Relief from forfeiture for non-payment of rent: Hill and Redman's Law of Landlord and Tenant [5041]. Who can apply

ARCHIVED: THIS PRACTICE NOTE IS BASED ON CPR PROVISIONS REVOKED ON 1 APRIL 2013. IT IS THEREFORE FOR HISTORICAL PURPOSES ONLY. For guidance on the current, post- Denton , position see • Practice Notes: Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview, Case management—compliance, Agreements to extend time under CPR 3.8(4) (buffer agreements), Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach, Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived], Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required? and Relief from sanctions—making or opposing an application • Precedents: Letter requesting extension of time for compliance with rule, practice direction or court order, Agreement to extend time for compliance under CPR 3.8(4) (buffer agreement), Letter responding to request for extension of time for compliance with rule, practice direction or court order, Letter requesting consent to application for relief from sanctions, Letter responding to request for consent to relief from sanctions, Draft order for relief from sanctions, Witness statement in support of an application for relief from sanctions and Witness statement in opposition to an application for relief from sanctions The court's power The

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. IMPORTANT NOTE: this Practice Note provides guidance on the application and interpretation of CPR 3.9 post-Mitchell but pre-Denton; Decadent and Utilise (Denton v White & others; Decadent Vapours Limited v Bevan & others; Utilise TDS Limited v Cranstoun Davies & others [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] All ER (D) 53 (July) (not reported by LexisNexis®). The Court of Appeal has expressed its hope that the Denton decision will remove the need to refer back to earlier decisions. As such, the guidance within this Practice Note is largely for historic purposes only. For guidance on the current, post- Denton , position see • Overview: Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview • Practice Notes: , Case management—compliance, Agreements to extend time under CPR 3.8(4) (buffer agreements), Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach, Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required?, Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived]

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. IMPORTANT NOTE: this Practice Note provides guidance on the application and interpretation of CPR 3.9 post-Mitchell but pre-Denton; Decadent and Utilise (Denton v White & others; Decadent Vapours Limited v Bevan & others; Utilise TDS Limited v Cranstoun Davies & others [2014] EWCA Civ 906; [2014] All ER (D) 53 (July) (not reported by LexisNexis®)). The Court of Appeal has expressed its hope that the Denton decision will remove the need to refer back to earlier decisions. As such, the guidance within this Practice Note is largely for historic purposes only. For guidance on the current, post- Denton , position see: • Practice Notes: Compliance and relief from sanctions—overview, Case management—compliance, Agreements to extend time under CPR 3.8(4) (buffer agreements), Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach, Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived], Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief

Dispute Resolution analysis: The court held that a failure to comply with the requirements of CPR 3.6 carries with it an implied sanction and accordingly a defaulting party will require relief from sanctions in order to proceed with its application. This case is an important reminder of the need for applications under CPR 3.6 to be made within the prescribed time limit and to be supported by evidence. The 14-day time limit provided by CPR 3.6 is deliberately short as parties are entitled to finality in proceedings. Accordingly, a failure to make a valid application within the time limit is likely to constitute a serious and significant breach. The case also considered whether the current global pandemic coronavirus (COVID-19) constitutes a good reason for a breach of a court order, practice direction or rule. The court held that the pandemic and the fact that one of the parties had been self-isolating was not in itself a good reason for the delay. Written by Nicole Bollard, barrister, at 3PB Barristers.

Dispute Resolution analysis: A high-powered Court of Appeal, with Sir Geoffrey Vos MR writing the unanimous judgment, confirmed that the Denton principles do apply to an application to set-aside a default judgment under CPR 13.3. Providing welcome clarity on the issue, the Court of Appeal gives helpful guidance as to three different categories of cases for the purposes of the relief from sanctions regime, and reviewed the at times inconsistent case law, unifying key decisions and confining or over-ruling others. In this case, the court upheld the setting aside of a judgment in default against the second defendant, despite the serious and significant nature of the breach and an unexplained delay in applying to set aside the judgment, on grounds including that the defendant had a real prospect of successfully defending the claim. The judgment might provide hope to defendants in comparable situations, the court's warnings notwithstanding. Written by Barney Stannard, partner, and David Bufton, senior knowledge lawyer, at Travers Smith LLP.

This Practice Note provides an overview of the key points on relief from sanctions to include when an application is required, how to make or oppose an application and the court’s approach. It also highlights the importance of complying with rule, practice directions and court orders and the need to proactively mange cases insofar as is reasonably practicable. This Practice Note should be read as a starting point and in conjunction with the following Practice Notes, which provide further, more comprehensive information: • Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required? • Relief from sanctions—making or opposing an application • Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach The modern approach of the courts is to have a greater emphasis on compliance and the need for efficient conduct of litigation at proportionate cost (Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Warren (2024)). It is therefore important that the parties comply with rules, practice directions and court orders in order to avoid any potential non-compliance. It is also equally important for the parties

This Practice Note provides a number of illustrative decisions to provide an insight into how the courts will deal with an application for relief from sanctions. It separates cases where relief from sanctions was granted from cases where relief from sanctions was refused noting the key facts of the case and details of the decision. This Practice Note provides details of relevant cases from 1 January 2024 onwards. For illustrative decisions involving relief from sanctions prior to 1 January 2024, see Practice Note: Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions [Archived]. For guidance on when an application for relief is required and on making or opposing an application, see Practice Notes: Relief from sanctions—when is an application for relief required? and Relief from sanctions—making or opposing an application. For more detailed guidance as to the court’s approach to relief from sanctions, see Practice Note: Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach. Relief from sanctions granted Case details and analysis Issue Decision Hughes v World Rugby Ltd [2026] EWHC 2149 (KB)21 August 2026 The claimants failed to

ARCHIVED: This Practice Note has been archived and is not maintained. This table focuses on case management compliance and relief from sanctions (RFS) decisions since (and including) the Court of Appeal's ‘joint’ judgment in Denton v White; Decadent Vapours Limited v Bevan; Utilise TDS Limited v Cranstoun Davies. For analysis of the Court of Appeal's decision in Denton, see News Analyses: Court of Appeal: 'Mitchell Appeals' unanimously allowed (Denton, Decadent and Utilise) and Relief from sanction—how the courts are applying Mitchell. The Court of Appeal, in Denton, expressed the hope there would be no need to refer back to earlier decisions. However, for information on decisions determined under the prior decision of Mitchell v News Group Newspapers, see Practice Notes: Relief from sanctions decisions—pre-Denton [Archived] and Relief from sanctions (pre-Denton) [Archived]. Please note, however, that guidance in those Practice Notes is largely of historical interest only and so has not been updated. For information on making an application for RFS, see Practice Notes: Relief from sanctions—when is an application

This Practice Note provides information on how to make or oppose an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. In particular, it covers the evidence needed in support of and in response to an application for relief, potential costs issues for consideration and how to appeal a decision granting or refusing relief. It also provides practical tips/points to consider in respect of making or opposing an application for relief from sanctions. Making an application for relief from sanctions An application for relief from sanctions is an application for a court order—the basic procedure is therefore set out in CPR 23 and CPR PD 23A. Guidance on making a CPR-compliant application can be found in Practice Note: How to make an application for a court order (CPR 23). It is important to be familiar with this guidance before making any application to the court—it provides the starting point for all applications governed by CPR 23 and CPR PD 23A. The following sections highlight particular aspects of the applications procedure which are specific

Key cases considering relief from sanctions Mitchell v News Group Newspapers (2013) was the first Court of Appeal decision to apply CPR 3.9, as revised under the April 2013 Jackson Reforms. Under Mitchell, the position was, generally and put very simply, that where: • the breach was trivial and appropriate action had been taken promptly, relief would generally be granted • the breach was not trivial, but there was a good reason for it and appropriate action had been taken promptly, relief would usually be granted • in all other cases, ie where the breach was not trivial and there was no good reason for it, relief would not generally be granted unless there was a compelling reason to do so The interpretation and application of the Mitchell guidance led to some 'unduly draconian' and ‘manifestly unjust and disproportionate’ decisions and penalties. This was neither the ‘correct approach’ nor ‘mandated’ by the Court of Appeal in Mitchell (2013) (Denton v TH White Ltd (2014)). The Court of Appeal in Denton spoke

This Practice Note should be read in conjunction with Practice Notes: • Case management—compliance • Relief from sanctions—the courts’ approach • Relief from sanctions—making or opposing an application • Relief from sanctions—illustrative decisions This Practice Note provides practical guidance on when you should consider applying for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and when some additional or alternative course of action may be more appropriate. It considers the recommended approach to be followed as a result of the 2023 and 2024 Court of Appeal cases, which are noted in this Practice Note, along with the narrow circumstances in which a sanction can be implied. It also considers cases that were decided before and after these Court of Appeal decisions. In respect of cases which were decided prior to these Court of Appeal decisions, caution should be taken in respect of some of the conclusions reached. In addition, this Practice Note provides comments, where applicable, on the likely approach that would be taken as a result of the 2023 and 2024