Ursula Riniker v Mostapha Al-Turk
[2023] EWHC 2910 (KB)
Winchester Park Limited v 1 Palace Gate Freehold Limited
22 March 2024
[2024] EWHC 661 (Ch)
High Court
A freeholder repeatedly ignored court orders to provide important documents in a property dispute. The judge struck out their defence and gave the other side what they wanted. The appeal court agreed the punishment fit the crime because the freeholder was repeatedly uncooperative and the trial was about to start.
Key Facts
- •Winchester Park Limited (Appellant) failed to comply with disclosure obligations in a collective enfranchisement dispute.
- •The dispute centered on the use of Unit 6 at 1 Palace Gate, crucial for determining the right to enfranchisement.
- •The High Court Judge refused Winchester Park relief from sanctions, striking out their defence and granting a declaration in favour of the Claimant.
- •Winchester Park appealed, arguing the judge's decision was draconian and disproportionate.
- •The appeal focused on the judge's exercise of discretion in applying the Denton test (Denton v. TH White).
Legal Principles
Denton test for relief from sanctions
Denton v. TH White [2014] EWCA Civ. 906
Standard disclosure under CPR Part 31
CPR, Part 31
Overriding objective to deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost
CPR, rule 3.9
Appellate court's reluctance to interfere with case management decisions
Chartwell Estate Agents Limited v. Fergies Properties SA & Anor [2014] EWCA Civ. 506
Test for admitting fresh evidence on appeal (Ladd v. Marshall)
Ladd v. Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489
Declarations as judicial acts requiring evidentiary satisfaction
Wallersteiner v. Moir [1974] 1 WLR 991
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The judge's decision to refuse relief from sanctions was within the ambit of reasonable disagreement. The appellant's serious and repeated failures to comply with disclosure orders, the crucial importance of the missing documents, and the proximity to trial justified the sanction.
Application to admit new evidence refused.
The evidence could have been obtained with reasonable diligence for the lower court proceedings and its admission would undermine the principle of finality.
Application to amend grounds of appeal refused.
The proposed amendment had no real prospect of success, as the judge's decision to grant the declaration was justified on the evidence before him.