Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Ru Tan v Mohamad Yasser Idlbi & Anor

13 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2840 (KB)
High Court
Someone missed a deadline to submit their court budget. They tried to fix it, but the judge said no. The appeal court mostly agreed, because the person who missed the deadline also made other mistakes. But, they did agree to accept the late emails because the other side didn't complain about them until the very end.

Key Facts

  • •The Claimant's application for relief from sanctions regarding a late costs budget was dismissed by the lower court.
  • •The Claimant appealed, arguing the judge erred in refusing to regularize defective service and in applying the relief from sanctions test.
  • •The Claimant's costs budget was emailed to the Defendants, breaching a court order requiring service by post.
  • •The Defendants did not object to email service until the trial.
  • •The Claimant's application for relief was also served by email.
  • •The Defendants engaged in various procedural irregularities throughout the litigation.
  • •The Claimant's solicitors' witness statement was deemed 'disingenuous' by the lower court.

Legal Principles

Appeals against case management decisions have a high threshold; the appellate court will not lightly interfere unless the decision is plainly wrong.

Royal & Sun v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ. 1964, Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ. 1537, Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties SA [2014] EWCA Civ. 506, Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1258

Relief from sanctions is governed by CPR Part 3, r. 3.9, using a three-stage test from Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ. 906.

CPR Part 3, r. 3.9, Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ. 906

CPR Part 6 governs service of documents, with PD 6A specifying requirements for electronic service.

CPR Part 6, PD 6A

CPR r. 6.15 allows for the court to regularize defective service; the application must be supported by evidence.

CPR r. 6.15, 6.27

In considering regularisation of service, relevant factors include steps taken by the sender, actual receipt, receiver's belief regarding service, nature of the document, and prejudice to the receiver.

Serbian Orthodox Church v Kesar [2021] EWHC 1025, Barton v Wright Hassle [2018] UKSC 12

Outcomes

Appeal dismissed.

The judge's decision, while not fully reasoned, was within the generous ambit of his discretion. While there was fault on both sides, the Claimant's solicitors' serious breaches (late service, improper service method, disingenuous witness statement) and failure to address the relief application before trial outweighed the Defendants' procedural irregularities.

Judge's decision on regularising service set aside.

The judge erred in finding insufficient evidence to support regularisation. The court considered the relevant factors from Serbian Orthodox Church v Kesar and found they overwhelmingly favored retrospective validation due to the Defendants' lack of objection to email communication, lack of prejudice from the late service, and the nature of the documents (not 'bright line' documents).

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.