Key Facts
- •Mr. Harris appealed an order refusing an extension of time to appeal a County Court judgment against him by Santander PLC.
- •The County Court judgment awarded Santander possession of Mr. Harris's property and a money judgment for mortgage arrears.
- •The arrears included sums Santander paid to the management company on Mr. Harris's behalf following section 146 notices for unpaid service charges.
- •Mr. Harris argued that the arrears were miscalculated and that the section 146 notices were invalid due to fraud and breaches of the lease by the management company.
- •He claimed 'new evidence' emerged in 2021 supporting his case, but admitted possessing this evidence before the original judgment.
- •Mr. Harris represented himself and experienced delays due to health issues, other litigation, family matters, and the pandemic.
Legal Principles
Applications for extension of time for filing appeal notices are treated as applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 and are determined using the three-stage Denton test.
R(Hysaj) v The Secretary of State [2014] EWCA Civ 1633 and Denton [2014] EWCA Civ 906
The three-stage Denton test assesses the seriousness of the breach, the reasons for the delay, and all circumstances to achieve a just outcome, considering efficient litigation and compliance with rules.
Denton [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Litigants in person are required to comply with rules, and the absence of legal representation is not a valid excuse for delay.
Lakatamia [2019] EWCA Civ 1626
While allegations of fraud may be considered when determining an extension of time, they do not negate the time limit for appealing a judgment. Appeals based on fraud must still comply with CPR 52.12.
Case law cited but not explicitly referenced.
Outcomes
The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused.
The 14-month delay was a serious breach, not justified by Mr. Harris's health issues, other litigation, or the pandemic. The 'new evidence' was available before the original judgment, and the alleged fraud was against third parties, not Santander. The appeal lacked obvious merit.
The order of Sir Stephen Stewart refusing the extension of time was upheld.
The court found Mr. Harris's delay was primarily due to prioritizing other litigation, not unavoidable circumstances. The appeal's merits were insufficient to justify granting the extension.
Mr. Harris's informal application for a stay of enforcement was refused.
The application lacked detail and should be made to the County Court handling enforcement.