Santander PLC v Harris [2024] EWHC 351 (KB) (22 February 2024)

Santander PLC v Harris [2024] EWHC 351 (KB) (22 February 2024)

The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay of 14 months was serious and significant, not justified by the reasons advanced, and caused by the applicant's choice to prioritize other litigation. The alleged new evidence was available before the judgment, and the grounds of appeal lacked clear and obvious merit. Compliance with procedural rules and the need for finality outweighed any arguments for extension.

Citation
[2024] EWHC 351 (KB)
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Santander PLC; Appellant/defendant: Anthony Harris
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 February 2024
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Set Aside/vary Order Refusing Extension of Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Extension of Time to Appeal, Relief From Sanctions, Possession Proceedings, Mortgage Arrears, Section 146 Notices, Service Charges, Ground Rent, Fraud Allegations, Finality of Judgments
Civil Procedure Property Law Mortgage Law Extension of Time to Appeal Relief From Sanctions Possession Proceedings Mortgage Arrears Section 146 Notices +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Santander PLC

Respondent/claimant

Anthony Harris

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Set Aside/vary Order Refusing Extension of Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal the County Court order
  2. 2 Whether the order refusing extension of time should be set aside or varied
  3. 3 Whether new evidence justifies an out-of-time appeal

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time to appeal was refused because the delay of 14 months was serious and significant, not justified by the reasons advanced, and caused by the applicant's choice to prioritize other litigation. The alleged new evidence was available before the judgment, and the grounds of appeal lacked clear and obvious merit. Compliance with procedural rules and the need for finality outweighed any arguments for extension.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Application to set aside or vary the order of 19 September 2023 is refused
  • No extension of time to appeal is granted