Case Law Analysis: Denial of Relief from Sanctions Reinforces Importance of Procedural Compliance

Citation: [2024] EWHC 130 (Ch)
Judgment on


The matter of Derina Tetla Phipps v Bruce Constantine Goulbourne, adjudicated in the High Court of Justice Business and Property Courts of England and Wales, centered on an application for relief from sanctions with respect to a probate claim. Throughout the case, various legal principles were invoked, most notably those pertaining to CPR r. 3.9 and service of process. This article dissects the case law provided, analyzed through the lens of these underlying legal principles.

Key Facts

The estate in question belonged to Tetla Yvonne Goulbourne, who passed away in 2020. The claimant, Derina Tetla Phipps, her daughter, sought to probate a will, a copy of which was unearthed in the deceased’s emails. The defendant, Bruce Constantine Goulbourne, the late Yvonne Goulbourne’s widower, contested the validity of this will.

Upon receiving an unless order, which mandated the claimant to issue and serve a probate action, the claimant solicitors mistakenly believed that the court would serve the documents. This misconception resulted in a failure to serve the probate claim within the prescribed period, thereby triggering the application for relief from sanctions.

The Civil Procedure Rules (CPR), specifically CPR r. 3.9, are at the heart of this case. The rule deals with relief from sanctions and enumerates factors the court must consider to deal justly with such applications, including efficient litigation conduct and enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions, and orders. The Denton v TH White Ltd criteria, as enunciated in [2014] EWCA Civ 906, provided the guiding framework for the court’s analysis. The three-stage test in Denton:

  1. Evaluate the severity of the breach.
  2. Examine whether there was a good reason for the breach.
  3. Assess all circumstances of the case.

Service of process is another fundamental principle in question here. The manner in which claimants must serve documents, as required by the Practice Direction 51O-The Electronic Working Pilot Scheme and CPR r. 7.5, was misinterpreted by the solicitors representing the claimant. This misinterpretation underpins the procedural irregularity leading to the default.

The Bright-Line Rule indicated in Barton v Wright [2018] UKSC 12 underscores the importance of formal procedural adherence in determining the validity of served documents.

Oak Cash & Carry Limited v British Gas Trading Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 153 was another influential authority which helped to appraise the seriousness of failing to comply with an unless order, addressing the issue of multiple breaches and their consequences.


The claimant failed on all three stages of the Denton test. MASTER TEVERSON found the breach serious and significant, citing a lack of diligent action to remedy non-compliance, a matter which was inadequately addressed by the claimant’s legal representatives. The claimant did not provide a ‘good reason’ justifying the default, primarily due to a misunderstanding surrounding the responsibility for service.

The decision to deny relief was predicated on the pivotal importance of enforcing compliance with rules and the significant lapse in action following the issue of an unless order. Furthermore, MASTER TEVERSON concluded that providing relief would not be just, given the Claimant’s failure to expeditiously seek the same and would undermine the integrity of the unless order and the procedural rules in general.


The reasoning in Derina Tetla Phipps v Bruce Constantine Goulbourne reaffirms the criticality of adhering to procedural rules and the implications of seeking relief from sanctions under CPR r. 3.9. The analysis showcases the developmental interplay of case law governing procedural defaults and the courts’ unwavering commitment to efficient litigation conduct. The outcome of the case underscores the onus on legal representatives to effectively manage and execute necessary procedural actions in a timely manner to avoid prejudicing their clients’ interests.

Related Summaries