Stolzenberg & Ors v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 827 (30 June 2004)

Stolzenberg & Ors v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors [2004] EWCA Civ 827 (30 June 2004)

The court refused permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue, holding the claimants had a real prospect of success and the judge had not erred in his assessment. On the discretion issue, the court upheld the judge's refusal to set aside the judgments and related orders, finding the appellants' non-compliance was intentional, not justified, and that delay and prejudice to the claimants outweighed any arguable defence. The balancing exercise under CPR 3.9 and the overriding objective did not justify relief from sanctions.

Citation
[2004] EWCA Civ 827
Parties
Appellants: Stolzenberg & Ors; Respondents: CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on conspiracy issue refused; refusal to set aside judgments and related orders upheld.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Freezing Orders, Conspiracy, Jurisdiction, Default Judgments, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Fraud Relief From Sanctions Freezing Orders Conspiracy Jurisdiction Default Judgments +1 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stolzenberg & Ors

Appellants

CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court, Chancery Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue (real prospect of success on claim in conspiracy)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to set aside judgments and related orders (exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9)

Ratio Decidendi

The court refused permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue, holding the claimants had a real prospect of success and the judge had not erred in his assessment. On the discretion issue, the court upheld the judge's refusal to set aside the judgments and related orders, finding the appellants' non-compliance was intentional, not justified, and that delay and prejudice to the claimants outweighed any arguable defence. The balancing exercise under CPR 3.9 and the overriding objective did not justify relief from sanctions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; permission to appeal on conspiracy issue refused; refusal to set aside judgments and related orders upheld.

Orders

  • Permission to appeal on conspiracy issue refused
  • Refusal to set aside default judgments and related freezing and debarring orders upheld