Litigation cases review – April 2025

Relief from sanctions

In general, the principles applied to applications to extend time for appealing are the same as the Denton principles that apply to an application for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. Unless the proposed appeal can readily be seen to be very strong or very weak, the court will not investigate its merits. The absence of a "good reason” for the delay is not of itself fatal to an application of this kind if the court is still persuaded that it is fair and just to grant the application (Yaxley-Lennon v HM Solicitor General).

Late service of a claim form

Late service of a claim form by a valid method triggers the time limits for acknowledging service and disputing jurisdiction. A defendant in this situation has to respond but the defendant here had done nothing. The court rejected the defendant’s argument that where the court has not extended time or validated service, the claim form is in a permanent state of limbo (The Occupiers of Samuel Garside House v Bellway Homes Ltd).

Pre-action destruction of documents

The court will not strike out a statement of case for destruction of documents before the commencement of the claim unless the destruction amounts to a perversion (or attempted perversion) of the course of justice that will also prevent a fair trial. There is an express duty on the parties' legal representatives to notify their clients of the need to preserve disclosable documents as soon as litigation is contemplated (Clarke v Guardian News and Media Ltd).

Norwich Pharmacal orders

A Norwich Pharmacal order requiring a third party to reveal the identity of a wrongdoer has to be attached to live proceedings. The appellant made an application against a company to reveal the identity of sub-contractors it had used to erect scaffolding at the appellant's home.  There was no live ongoing litigation between the parties and so the court refused to make the order (Al-Ajeel v Anglian Renewables Ltd).

High Court or County Court?

Cases involving sums less than £500,000 involving a range of causes of action are routinely determined in the County Court. This personal injury claim should have been tried in the Cardiff County Court, even though the lawyers and experts were not based in Wales. The court rejected the claimant’s lawyers’ submission that bringing the claim in the Royal Courts of Justice (London High Court) furthered the overriding objective because the administration in the County Court was “comparatively woeful” (Boyd v Hughes).

Our content explained