Leadingway Consultants Ltd v Saab & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 582 (09 May 2025)

Leadingway Consultants Ltd v Saab & Anor [2025] EWCA Civ 582 (09 May 2025)

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to grant relief from sanctions to the second defendant due to the short delay, solicitor error, and the unclear unless order, but erred in setting aside default judgment against the first defendant, as the 16-month delay was unexplained and promptness is a critical requirement under CPR 13.3.

Citation
[2025] EWCA Civ 582
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Leadingway Consultants Limited; First Defendant/respondent: Ayoub Farid Michel Saab; Second Defendant/respondent: Michel Norbert Saab (as administrator of the estate of the late Fadi Michel Saab)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Commercial Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Unless Orders, Jurisdiction Challenges, Promptness in Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Relief From Sanctions Setting Aside Default Judgment Unless Orders Jurisdiction Challenges Promptness in Applications

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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leadingway Consultants Limited

Claimant/appellant

Ayoub Farid Michel Saab

First Defendant/respondent

Michel Norbert Saab (as administrator of the estate of the late Fadi Michel Saab)

Second Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Commercial Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commercial Court erred in granting relief from sanctions to the second defendant for non-compliance with an unless order
  2. 2 Whether the Commercial Court erred in setting aside default judgment against the first defendant after significant delay

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was entitled to grant relief from sanctions to the second defendant due to the short delay, solicitor error, and the unclear unless order, but erred in setting aside default judgment against the first defendant, as the 16-month delay was unexplained and promptness is a critical requirement under CPR 13.3.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Appeal against relief from sanctions for the second defendant dismissed; relief from sanctions upheld.
  • Appeal against setting aside default judgment against the first defendant allowed; default judgment reinstated against the first defendant.