S Palihakkara v The English Sport Council
[2023] EAT 27
Conor McKnight v Chelsea Football Club Limited
14 June 2024
[2024] EWHC 2884 (KB)
High Court
A man didn't file his court defense on time. The judge refused to let him file it late. He appealed, saying the judge didn't consider his mental health or his rights. The appeal court said the first judge was right, even though he made a small procedural mistake. The man lost because his excuse for being late wasn't good enough.
Key Facts
- •Conor McKnight (Appellant) appealed Master Eastman's order dismissing his application for permission to file a Defence out of time and entering judgment for Chelsea Football Club (Respondent).
- •The appeal concerned McKnight's failure to file a Defence by the October 2022 deadline, despite an extension to December 2022.
- •McKnight's application for relief from sanctions was made four and a half months late, on short notice.
- •McKnight claimed mental health issues as a reason for the delay, but had pursued other legal matters during the same period.
- •The Master dismissed McKnight's application, considering the delay serious and unjustified.
- •McKnight's Employment Tribunal (ET) claim, also against Chelsea, had concluded before the High Court appeal, finding unfair dismissal but substantial contributory misconduct by McKnight.
- •The High Court appeal considered whether the Master erred in exercising discretion and whether a procedural irregularity occurred.
Legal Principles
Three-stage test for relief from sanctions (Denton v White)
Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906; [2014] 1 WLR 3296 (CA)
Appeal test under CPR Rule 52.21(3): decision wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity
CPR Rule 52.21(3)
Article 6 ECHR right to a fair hearing
Article 6 ECHR
Common law duty to give reasons for decisions
Common Law
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
The Master's decision was not a wrong exercise of discretion; the delay was serious and unjustified, and arguments regarding Article 6 and prejudice to ET proceedings were unconvincing. While a procedural irregularity (failure to allow reply) occurred, it didn't independently justify allowing the appeal.