Phyllis Rampersad and another v Deo Ramlal and 3 others (Trinidad and Tobago)
[2022] UKPC 50
Boidun Jaiyesimi v Sunday Adeyemi Kukoyi
31 January 2024
[2024] EWHC 164 (KB)
High Court
A complicated court case with lots of missed deadlines and procedural errors. The court ruled against the defendant twice because he didn't follow the rules. Even though some of his problems were understandable, the judge said the overall mess he created justified the consequences.
Key Facts
- •Two appeals were heard: one against the refusal to amend a defence and counterclaim (Appeal 186), and one against the dismissal of a relief from sanctions application (Appeal 37), both stemming from a loan dispute (Claim 893) and a subsequent fraud claim (Claim 733).
- •Appeal 186 concerned the Defendant's failure to properly file and serve an application to amend his defence and counterclaim, primarily due to non-compliance with fee payment procedures.
- •Appeal 37 concerned the Defendant's failure to serve witness statements on time, leading to the striking out of his defence.
- •The Defendant's legal team consistently missed deadlines and failed to comply with court orders throughout both claims.
- •The judge in the lower court dismissed both applications, and both decisions were appealed to the High Court.
Legal Principles
Appeals against case management decisions face a high threshold; the appellate court will not lightly interfere unless the decision was plainly wrong, involved an error of principle, or failed to consider relevant matters.
Royal & Sun v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ. 1964, Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ. 1537, Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ. 1258
Every appeal is a review of the lower court's decision and will only be granted if the decision was wrong or unjust due to a serious procedural or other irregularity.
CPR r. 52.21
New evidence is only admissible on appeal if it was unobtainable with reasonable diligence, would significantly influence the result, and is credible.
Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 W.L.R. 1489 (CA)
Challenges to findings of fact in the lower court face a high threshold, particularly at trial where the judge had the benefit of seeing and hearing witnesses.
Henderson v Foxworth [2014] UKSC 41, Grizzly Business v Stena Drilling [2017] EWCA Civ. 94, Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings [2023] EWCA Civ. 191
Under CPR Part 23, an application is considered filed upon receipt by the court; payment of the fee is not a precondition for filing, but the court may refuse to accept an application if fee payment procedures are not followed.
CPR Part 23, CPR PD5B, Hayes v Butters [2021] EWCA Civ. 252
Service of an application requires serving an issued copy, not just a draft, and must be done as soon as practicable after filing.
CPR r.23.4, r.23.7, PD23A para 4.1
In considering relief from sanctions, courts apply a three-stage test (Denton v White): seriousness of the breach, good reason for the breach, and all circumstances of the case, including the need for efficiency and proportionality.
Denton v White 2014 EWCA Civ. 906
Outcomes
Appeal 186 dismissed.
The Defendant's application to amend was not properly filed due to non-compliance with CPR PD5B regarding fee payment, and it was not properly served. The judge's decision was within his discretion.
Appeal 37 dismissed.
The Defendant failed to provide a good reason for the late service of witness statements, despite mitigating circumstances. Considering the overall history of the litigation, the judge's decision to strike out the defence was justified.