Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 774 (23 July 2015)

Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Sinclair & Ors [2015] EWCA Civ 774 (23 July 2015)

The order of Lewison LJ was based on a misapplication of the principles in Mitchell, treating the two factors in CPR 3.9 as paramount and failing to consider all the circumstances as required by Denton. The sanction imposed by Rix LJ was a stay, not a strike-out, and the subsequent strike-out was disproportionate given that the default had been remedied. The change in the law following Denton constituted a material change of circumstances justifying the revocation of Lewison LJ's order and the grant of relief from sanction, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Citation
[2015] EWCA Civ 774
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Thomas Ian Sinclair; Second Defendant/respondent: Sokol Holdings Inc; Third Defendant/respondent: Eagle Point Investments Limited; Fourth Defendant/respondent: Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited; Part 20 Defendant: John Forster Emmott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
23 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Application to Revoke Order and for Relief From Sanction
Outcome
Appeal allowed; Lewison LJ's order revoked; relief from sanction granted; stay lifted; appeal to proceed on terms as to costs.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Revocation of Court Orders, Case Management Sanctions, Security for Costs, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Revocation of Court Orders Case Management Sanctions Security for Costs Appeal Procedure

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Wilson & Partners, Limited

Claimant/appellant

Thomas Ian Sinclair

First Defendant/respondent

Sokol Holdings Inc

Second Defendant/respondent

Eagle Point Investments Limited

Third Defendant/respondent

Butterfield Bank (Bahamas) Limited

Fourth Defendant/respondent

John Forster Emmott

Part 20 Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Application to Revoke Order and for Relief From Sanction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of Lewison LJ refusing relief from sanction and striking out the appeal should be revoked under CPR 3.1(7)
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanction should be granted under CPR 3.9 in light of the principles restated in Denton

Ratio Decidendi

The order of Lewison LJ was based on a misapplication of the principles in Mitchell, treating the two factors in CPR 3.9 as paramount and failing to consider all the circumstances as required by Denton. The sanction imposed by Rix LJ was a stay, not a strike-out, and the subsequent strike-out was disproportionate given that the default had been remedied. The change in the law following Denton constituted a material change of circumstances justifying the revocation of Lewison LJ's order and the grant of relief from sanction, allowing the appeal to proceed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; Lewison LJ's order revoked; relief from sanction granted; stay lifted; appeal to proceed on terms as to costs.

Orders

  • Lewison LJ's order of 9 December 2013 revoked under CPR 3.1(7)
  • Relief from sanction granted under CPR 3.9