Court of Appeal clarifies distinction between relief from sanctions and case management principles in Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics case

Citation: [2023] EWCA Civ 1273
Judgment on


The case of Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation & Ors is a significant one, adjudicated by the Court of Appeal (Civil Division), which addresses the legal framework surrounding applications for corrections in provided information pursuant to an Island Records order in the context of intellectual property claims. This case particularly explored whether such an application constitutes relief from sanctions under the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) 3.9 or if it should be managed simply according to case management principles and the overriding objective under CPR 3.1.

Key Facts

Lufthansa Technik AG (the appellant) sought to prevent Panasonic Avionics Corporation (the respondent) from relying on updated financial information which affected Panasonic’s profits by approximately $30 million, provided after Lufthansa elected for an account of profits rather than an inquiry as to damages. This election was based on the information initially provided in compliance with an Island Records order, which was later identified as incomplete and inaccurate. The Deputy High Court Judge, Recorder Douglas Campbell KC, assessed the application as one for relief from sanctions and ultimately refused Panasonic’s application based on the Denton principles.

Upon appeal, Panasonic argued that the initial application was not for relief from sanctions, but should have been treated under ordinary case management principles. The Court of Appeal agreed with Panasonic’s argument on the appeal, holding that no sanctions were implied for non-compliance with the Island Records order, and hence, the Denton principles did not apply.

The legal principles applied in this case revolve around the application of CPR rules and the distinction between requests for relief from sanctions and other types of case management applications.

CPR r3.9 - Relief from Sanctions

Applications for relief from sanctions engage when a sanction exists due to non-compliance with a rule, practice direction, or court order. Denton v TH White Ltd provided a structured approach for considering such applications, which involves assessing the seriousness of the breach, explaining why the default occurred, and evaluating all the circumstances of the case.

CPR r3.1 - Case Management Principles

The overriding objective under CPR r3.1 emphasizes the need for cases to be dealt with justly, efficiently, and at proportionate cost. It is a broader principle that guides courts in case management outside the realm of sanctions.

Island Records Order

An Island Records order facilitates a claimant’s choice between an inquiry as to damages and an account of profits by providing preliminary financial information. The order seeks timely and cost-effective disclosure of information to make an informed election rather than detailed disclosure.

Application of Sanctions for Island Records Orders

The Court of Appeal in this case clarified that non-compliance with an Island Records order does not automatically engage relief from sanctions, as there is no express or implied automatic consequence in the CPR for such non-compliance. Rather, the appropriate remedy lies within ordinary case management.


Panasonic’s appeal was allowed on the basis that the application in question was not one for relief from sanctions, and thus Denton did not apply. Instead, the case should have been approached under case management principles, per CPR r3.1, aligning it with the overriding objective. The Court of Appeal granted an order extending the time for compliance with the original Morgan J’s order to the date of service of Mr. Takahashi’s statement. Consequently, Lufthansa was provided with 14 days to either confirm its previous election for an account or elect for an inquiry as to damages.


The case of Lufthansa Technik AG v Panasonic Avionics Corporation & Ors is a pivotal decision in clarifying the application of relief from sanctions in the context of corrections provided following an Island Records order in intellectual property disputes. The Court of Appeal’s ruling distinguished between sanctions that automatically take effect following a breach and the overarching case management principles guided by the overriding objective. This distinction reaffirms the flexibility within the judicial system to address non-compliance in a way that is just and proportionate to the breach’s implications, without rigidly constraining decisions to the framework of sanctions.

Related Summaries