Ru Tan v Mohamad Yasser Idlbi & Anor: Key Issues in Relief from Sanctions and Service of Documents in Civil Litigation

Citation: [2023] EWHC 2840 (KB)
Judgment on


The case of Ru Tan v Mohamad Yasser Idlbi & Anor [2023] EWHC 2840 (KB) provides an insightful example for legal professionals of the principles surrounding relief from sanctions, service of documents, and the scope of appellate intervention in case management decisions. This article analyses the key topics discussed in the case, linking them with the applicable legal principles and illuminating the judicial reasoning applied.

Key Facts

Ru Tan, the appellant in this case, appealed the trial judge’s dismissal of their application for relief from sanctions regarding late delivery of a costs budget. The cost budget’s late service resulted in CPR r.3.14 coming into effect, preventing the appellant from recovering an estimated £24,500 in legal costs. The appellant also sought to challenge the trial judge’s refusal to regularize the defective service of the application for relief. The appeal was ultimately dismissed, upholding the trial judge’s decision within the discretionary boundaries afforded to first-instance judges in case management.

Service of Documents and Retrospective Validation

A focal point in this case was the proper method and effect of service of documents in civil litigation. The appellant’s endeavors to serve documents by email without prior authorization were a breach of CPR Part 6 and PD 6A. However, the appellate court considered whether retrospective validation of such service could be merited based on the criteria established in Serbian Orthodox Church v Kesar [2021] EWHC 1025 and Barton v Wright Hassle [2018] UKSC 12. The appellate court detailed that the sender’s reasonable steps to notify the recipient, the actual receipt of documents, and the absence of prejudice to the recipient play integral roles in deciding whether to retrospectively validate service.

Relief from Sanctions

The principles applied for relief from sanctions as elaborated in Denton v White [2014] EWCA Civ 906 involve a three-stage test: the seriousness of the breach, the reason for the breach, and an evaluation of all the circumstances, inclusive of the need for litigation efficiency and rule compliance. In the analyzed case, conduct of the parties and case efficiency due to potential adjournments formed part of the considerations.

Case Management and Appellate Review

In this case, the appellate court reiterated the standard for reviewing case management decisions per the principles outlined in Royal & Sun v T & N [2002] EWCA Civ 1964 and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 1537. An appellate court must respect the original judge’s decisions unless satisfied that the decision is outside the discretionary ambit entrusted to the judge at first instance.


The appellate court concluded the following:

  1. The application to validate mis-service retrospectively was granted based on the reception of the documents and the lack of prejudice to the defendants.

  2. The appeal related to relief from sanctions was dismissed. The trial judge’s decision fell within the generous discretion allowed, considering both parties’ conduct, case efficiency, and the appellant’s failure to comply with directions.


In Ru Tan v Mohamad Yasser Idlbi & Anor, the appellate court displayed a careful adherence to established principles regarding service of documents and relief from sanctions. The decision elucidates the nuances involved in judicial discretion, the importance of procedural compliance, and the careful balance that must be struck between competing principles of case management and justice. Legal professionals can glean from this case the significance of prompt and correct service of documents and the high-threshold appellate courts employ when assessing first-instance judgments in case management decisions. The case stands as an instructive guide to these critical aspects of litigation in the UK legal system.

Related Summaries