Oak Cash & Carry Ltd v British Gas Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 153 (15 March 2016)

Oak Cash & Carry Ltd v British Gas Trading Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 153 (15 March 2016)

The defendant's breach in failing to file the pre-trial checklist was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and the lack of promptness in applying for relief from sanction, combined with the disruption to the litigation process, justified refusal of relief under CPR 3.9. The High Court was correct to reinstate the default judgment.

Citation
[2016] EWCA Civ 153
Parties
Appellant/defendant: OAK CASH & CARRY LIMITED; Respondent/claimant: BRITISH GAS TRADING LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Civil Procedure Rule 3.9, Default Judgment, Pre Trial Checklist, Unless Order, Litigation Conduct
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Civil Procedure Rule 3.9 Default Judgment Pre Trial Checklist Unless Order Litigation Conduct

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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

OAK CASH & CARRY LIMITED

Appellant/defendant

BRITISH GAS TRADING LIMITED

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the seriousness of non-compliance with an 'unless' order should be assessed with reference to the original breach as well as the breach of the unless order itself
  2. 2 The effect of delay in applying for relief from sanction under CPR 3.9

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant's breach in failing to file the pre-trial checklist was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and the lack of promptness in applying for relief from sanction, combined with the disruption to the litigation process, justified refusal of relief under CPR 3.9. The High Court was correct to reinstate the default judgment.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Default judgment in favour of the claimant reinstated
  • Application for relief from sanction refused