Utilise Tds Ltd v Davies & Ors
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- HIS HONOUR JUDGE HODGE QC
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
In Utilise TDS Limited v. Neil Cranstoun Davies & Ors, the claimant sought relief from sanctions due to late filing of form H by 41 minutes and late notification of negotiations. The court held that considering both breaches together made the violation non-trivial. The lack of prompt application for relief and the absence of a satisfactory explanation led the court to uphold the sanctions and dismiss the appeal.
JUDGMENT
JUDGE HODGE QC: This is my judgment in the case of Utilise TDS Limited (as claimant) and Neil Cranstoun Davies and two others (as defendants) - claim number 3MA30330 and appeal reference M14C014. This is an application by the claimant for permission to appeal from an order of District Judge Matharu dated 2 nd January 2014 refusing to grant relief against the sanctions imposed by an earlier order, also made by that District Judge, on 11 th November 2013 (and perfected on 18 th November 2013). The appeal raises what I am told is a novel point of law arising out of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Limited [2013] EWCA Civ 1537 reported at [2013] 6 Costs Law Reports 1008 [and now at [2014] 1 WLR 795 ] ,to which I shall simply refer as Mitchell . The novel point is this: if the breach of a court order attracting sanctions, considered in isolation, can be viewed as trivial, can another trivial breach of the same order result in the first breach being viewed as a non-trivial one?
I can take the background from the second defendant’s written skeleton argument. By a claim form issued in the Manchester District Registry of the Chancery Division on 11 th June 2013 the claimant seeks declaratory and other consequential relief in relation to the shares in the third defendant company, Watertrain Limited. The first and second defendants, who are separately represented in the litigation, deny the claimant’s entitlement to the relief sought. No relief is sought by the claimant against the third defendant, which is playing no active part in the proceedings.
A notice of proposed allocation to the multi-track in form 149C was sent out to the parties on or about 9 th August 2013. The notice stated that the claim was now a defended claim and it appeared that the case was suitable for allocation to the multi-track. Paragraph 3 of the order required the parties, by 9 th September 2013, to complete the directions questionnaire in form N181 and to file it with the court office at the Manchester District Registry, the address of which was then given, and to serve copies on all other parties. Paragraph 3(b) required the parties to attempt to agree directions with all other parties; and paragraph 3(c) required the parties to file proposed directions in accordance with CPR 29.1 (2) (whether or not agreed) with the directions questionnaire. The notice, which I understand is in the form originally published by the Court Service, m