This site uses cookies.

Another Bite at the Cherry? Relief From Sanctions & Changes of Circumstances - Thomas Crockett, 1 Chancery Lane

02/02/16. The courts’ approach to relief from sanctions is something on an ongoing saga of complexity and appeal, as the disparate permutations the new so-called ‘Jackson Reforms’ present themselves in apparently (at least to the Rules Committee) unforeseen ways.

The Supreme Court last month heard an appeal in the case of Thevarajah (Respondent) v Riordan and others (Appellants) [2015] UKSC 78 which concerned whether a party wishing to make another application for relief from sanctions was simply able to have another bite of the cherry with another judge.

The Court of Appeal reversed the decision of a Deputy High Court Judge who heard and granted the Defendants relief against a order debarring their defence of the Claimant’s Claim. The Court of Appeal’s held the second application should not have been considered on its merits because the Appellants were to show that there had been a material change of circumstances since the hearing of the first relief application.

The Appellants appealed to the Supreme Court.

Lord Neuberger gave the sole opinion of the court which with which the other Justices (Lord Mance, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption and Lord Hodge) agreed.

It was held that it was – if not a rule per CPR 3.1(7) – than a matter of ordinary principle that a second application for relief should only be entertained had there been a material change in circumstances (following Tibbles v SIG plc [2012] Civ 518). Secondly, it was held that late compliance does not in itself amount to a said material change in circumstances.

The lesson for parties applying for relief is of course to ensure that the first application for the same is as strong as possible and unless matters were to be materially altered in the meantime (it is difficult perhaps to think of an obvious example), the route for redress is to an appeal court.

Thomas Crockett
1 Chancery Lane

Image cc David Dixon

All information on this site was believed to be correct by the relevant authors at the time of writing. All content is for information purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. No liability is accepted by either the publisher or the author(s) for any errors or omissions (whether negligent or not) that it may contain. 

The opinions expressed in the articles are the authors' own, not those of Law Brief Publishing Ltd, and are not necessarily commensurate with general legal or medico-legal expert consensus of opinion and/or literature. Any medical content is not exhaustive but at a level for the non-medical reader to understand. 

Professional advice should always be obtained before applying any information to particular circumstances.

Excerpts from judgments and statutes are Crown copyright. Any Crown Copyright material is reproduced with the permission of the Controller of OPSI and the Queen’s Printer for Scotland under the Open Government Licence.