Yan Deng & Anor v Meng Zhang & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2392 (KB)
Ursula Riniker v Mostapha Al-Turk
17 November 2023
[2023] EWHC 2910 (KB)
High Court
Someone's appeal was thrown out because they didn't follow court orders. They argued they had filed a separate request to change those orders, but the judge didn't look at that request properly before throwing the appeal out. The higher court said the lower court made a mistake and put the appeal back on. The person who won got some money for their legal costs.
Key Facts
- •Ursula Riniker (appellant) appealed a judgment striking out her appeal against a final charging order.
- •The striking-out order was based on Riniker's non-compliance with directions in a prior order (the Luba Order).
- •Riniker argued her application to set aside parts of the Luba Order under CPR 3.3(5)(a) was valid, suspending the Luba Order's effect.
- •The lower court (HHJ Baucher) refused relief from sanctions and struck out the appeal.
- •Riniker appealed, arguing procedural irregularities in her application were minor and that the judge erred in applying the Denton test.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions is considered under the three-stage Denton test: significance of breach, reason for breach, and all circumstances of the case.
Denton v TH White Limited [2014] 1 WLR 3296
CPR 3.3 allows the court to make orders of its own initiative, but requires notice and an opportunity for representation if a hearing is held to decide on the order.
CPR 3.3
CPR 3.3(5)(a) allows a party affected by an order made under 3.3(4) to apply to have it set aside; the rule doesn't specify the application's form.
CPR 3.3(5)(a)
CPR 3.10 allows the court to remedy procedural errors unless they are serious and prejudicial.
CPR 3.10
Part 23 outlines the procedure for making applications, including filing an application notice.
Part 23 CPR
An appeal court will not overturn a lower court's decision on relief from sanctions unless there was an error of law or fact, or the decision was unreasonable.
Abdulle v Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis [2015] EWCA Civ 1260
The court has discretion to grant relief from sanctions of its own initiative but this will be exercised sparingly.
Hadi v Park [2022] EWCA Civ 581
Even if relief from sanctions is refused, the court must consider whether to permit a party to be heard, considering the proportionality of the sanction.
CPR 3.8(1)
Outcomes
The appeal was allowed.
HHJ Baucher erred in law by failing to consider the merits of Riniker's application to set aside the Luba Order before considering relief from sanctions and by not considering the proportionality of striking out the appeal.
The substantive appeal from the order of DDJ Morley was reinstated.
To remedy the errors made by the lower courts.
Riniker's application to set aside parts of the Luba Order was to be listed for substantive consideration.
To address the underlying issue of whether Riniker’s non-compliance was justified.
The respondent was ordered to pay Riniker £1,149.07 in costs.
Costs were to follow the event, but the amount awarded was reduced due to considerations under CPR 46.5, regarding costs for litigants in person.