Denton v TH White Ltd
The three stage test for relief from sanctions, clarifying and softening the approach in Mitchell.
Facts
In three appeals heard together, parties had failed to comply with rules or court orders, for example by serving witness statements late, and applied for relief from the sanctions that applied. After the decision in Mitchell, courts had been refusing relief even for minor breaches, and parties had been opposing applications for relief opportunistically, causing much satellite litigation. The Court of Appeal used the appeals to clarify the law.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal set out a three stage test for applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. First, the court should identify and assess the seriousness and significance of the failure to comply; if it is neither serious nor significant, relief will usually be granted. Second, the court should consider why the default occurred. Third, the court should evaluate all the circumstances of the case, so as to enable it to deal justly with the application, giving particular weight to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and to enforce compliance with rules and orders. The court also said that parties who unreasonably opposed applications for relief should be penalised in costs.
Related cases on civil justice and procedure
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
- Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 655, [2005] 1 WLR 3055
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119
- Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc [1999] 1 WLR 1926
- Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2000
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
- Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 1 WLR 2434
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
