Khatib v Ramco International & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 605 (18 May 2011)

Khatib v Ramco International & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 605 (18 May 2011)

The judge at first instance was aware of and applied the correct legal principles under CPR 3.9, considered the relevant circumstances and evidence, and was entitled to refuse relief from sanction for the claimant's failure to pay costs by the deadline. The exercise of discretion was not flawed and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 605
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Walid Khatib; Defendant/respondent: Ramco International; Defendant/respondent: Perhome Ltd; Defendant/respondent: Trans-Atlantic International Trading (TIT) Inc; Defendant/respondent: Technical Management & Services Co; Defendant/respondent: Hydraulic Power Technology Texas Inc; Defendant/respondent: Louisiana Inc; Defendant/respondent: Ramadan Ben Ismail
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, CPR 3.9, Striking Out, Costs Orders, Procedural Default
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions CPR 3.9 Striking Out Costs Orders Procedural Default

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 2 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Walid Khatib

Claimant/appellant

Ramco International

Defendant/respondent

Perhome Ltd

Defendant/respondent

Trans-Atlantic International Trading (TIT) Inc

Defendant/respondent

Technical Management & Services Co

Defendant/respondent

Hydraulic Power Technology Texas Inc

Defendant/respondent

Louisiana Inc

Defendant/respondent

Ramadan Ben Ismail

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred in refusing relief from sanction (striking out of claim) under CPR 3.9 for failure to pay costs by the deadline
  2. 2 Whether the judge failed to consider all relevant factors under CPR 3.9
  3. 3 Whether the judge misapplied the principles for granting relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The judge at first instance was aware of and applied the correct legal principles under CPR 3.9, considered the relevant circumstances and evidence, and was entitled to refuse relief from sanction for the claimant's failure to pay costs by the deadline. The exercise of discretion was not flawed and there was no basis for appellate interference.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Relief from sanction refused; claim remains struck out
  • Claimant permitted to defend the Part 20 claim