Gill v Anand & Anor [2026] EWHC 187 (KB) (04 February 2026)

Gill v Anand & Anor [2026] EWHC 187 (KB) (04 February 2026)

The First Defendant's breaches of multiple 'unless' orders and other court orders were serious and significant. Although he suffered from mental health issues, the evidence showed he was able to engage with the litigation at relevant times, and there was no medical evidence of incapacity. The delay in seeking relief was substantial and unexplained. Granting relief would undermine the efficient conduct of litigation and enforcement of compliance. Therefore, relief from sanctions was refused.

Citation
[2026] EWHC 187 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Tarnjit Singh Gill; First Defendant: Sanjay Anand; Second Defendant: Bobby Singh
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 February 2026
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Relief From Sanctions After Judgment and Assessment of Damages
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Summary Judgment, Variation of Orders, Mental Health and Litigation Capacity
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Non Compliance With Court Orders Summary Judgment Variation of Orders Mental Health and Litigation Capacity

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 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tarnjit Singh Gill

Claimant

Sanjay Anand

First Defendant

Bobby Singh

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Relief From Sanctions After Judgment and Assessment of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Defendant should be granted relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 for non-compliance with court orders
  2. 2 Whether the requirement to pay £350,000 into court should be varied

Ratio Decidendi

The First Defendant's breaches of multiple 'unless' orders and other court orders were serious and significant. Although he suffered from mental health issues, the evidence showed he was able to engage with the litigation at relevant times, and there was no medical evidence of incapacity. The delay in seeking relief was substantial and unexplained. Granting relief would undermine the efficient conduct of litigation and enforcement of compliance. Therefore, relief from sanctions was refused.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions dismissed

Orders

  • First Defendant's application for relief from sanctions is refused
  • No order made on the application to vary the payment into court requirement