Lloyds Developments Limited v Accor Hotel Services UK Limited
[2024] EWHC 1238 (TCC)
Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) v Accor HotelServices UK Limited
24 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 941 (TCC)
High Court
Two companies were fighting over a hotel project. One company didn't pay what the judge ordered, and the judge threatened to throw out their case. The company asked for more time at the last minute, and the judge gave them it because they paid eventually, the delay didn't harm the case, and there were good reasons for the delay. The judge stressed that doing this again is unlikely to work.
Key Facts
- •Lloyds Developments Limited (in administration) brought proceedings against Accor HotelServices UK Limited.
- •The dispute arose from the conversion of a building into a hotel, with disagreements over design changes and alleged breaches of contract.
- •Lloyds failed to pay Accor's costs as ordered by the court, leading to an 'unless order' threatening to strike out Lloyds' claim.
- •Lloyds filed an application for an extension of time to pay almost at the deadline, with procedural errors in the initial application.
- •Lloyds eventually paid the outstanding costs.
- •The court considered whether Lloyds' application was valid and whether the extension of time should be granted.
Legal Principles
An application notice must state briefly why the applicant seeks the order (CPR Part 23.6).
CPR Part 23.6
Procedural errors do not invalidate steps unless the court orders otherwise (CPR Part 3.10).
CPR Part 3.10
The court has the power to extend time for compliance with an order (CPR Part 3.1(2)(a)).
CPR Part 3.1(2)(a)
The court can vary or revoke an order (CPR Part 3.1(7)).
CPR Part 3.1(7)
In considering an in-time application for an extension of time, the court applies the overriding objective, taking into account the importance of complying with unless orders.
Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd, Robert v Momentum Services Ltd [2003] 1 WLR 1577, Kaneira v Kaneira [2014] 1 WLR 3728, Hallam Estates Ltd v Baker [2014] EWCA Civ 661, British Gas Trading Ltd v Oak Cash & Carry Ltd [2016] 1 WLR 4530, Sinclair v Dorsey & Whitney (Europe) Ltd [2015] EWHC 3888 (Comm), Jalla v Shell International [2021] EWCA Civ 1559
The three-stage Denton test for relief from sanctions applies to out-of-time applications (Denton v T H White [2014] EWCA Civ 906).
Denton v T H White [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Outcomes
Lloyds' application for an extension of time was granted.
The court found that the application, despite procedural errors and last-minute filing, was made in time. The court considered the administrators' explanations for the delay, the fact that the money was ultimately paid, and the lack of impact on proceedings. The overriding objective of dealing with cases justly and fairly weighed in favour of granting the extension.
Accor's application for judgment was dismissed.
This was a consequence of granting Lloyds' application for an extension of time.
Similar Cases
Pinewood Technologies Asia Pacific Limited v Pinewood Technologies Plc
[2024] EWHC 802 (TCC)
Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited & Anor
[2024] EWHC 494 (Comm)
Clarion Housing Association Limited v Crest Nicholson Operations Limited
[2023] EWHC 620 (TCC)