Stolzenberg & Ors v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors

Stolzenberg & Ors v CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse relief from sanctions and to decline to set aside the default judgments and related orders. The appellants' deliberate and conscious non-compliance with court orders, the delay in seeking relief, and the potential prejudice to a fair trial outweighed their right to a trial on the merits. The judge had properly considered all relevant factors under CPR 3.9 and the overriding objective, and his exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong. The respondents had a real prospect of success in the conspiracy claim, and the knowledge of Mr Gambazzi could be attributed to Mora and Chascona. Permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue...

Parties
Appellants: Stolzenberg & Ors; Respondents: CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (chancery Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue refused; appeal on the discretion issue dismissed; respondent's notice upheld in part.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Conspiracy, Attribution of Knowledge to Companies, Freezing Orders, Default Judgments, Jurisdictional Challenges
Civil Procedure Company Law Equity and Trusts Relief From Sanctions Conspiracy Attribution of Knowledge to Companies Freezing Orders Default Judgments +1 more

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

Parties

Stolzenberg & Ors

Appellants

CIBC Mellon Trust Co Ltd & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should grant permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue (real prospect of success in conspiracy claim)
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in refusing to set aside default judgments and related orders (discretion issue)
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the judge was correct to refuse relief from sanctions and to decline to set aside the default judgments and related orders. The appellants' deliberate and conscious non-compliance with court orders, the delay in seeking relief, and the potential prejudice to a fair trial outweighed their right to a trial on the merits. The judge had properly considered all relevant factors under CPR 3.9 and the overriding objective, and his exercise of discretion was not plainly wrong. The respondents had a real prospect of success in the conspiracy claim, and the knowledge of Mr Gambazzi could be attributed to Mora and Chascona. Permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue...

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue refused; appeal on the discretion issue dismissed; respondent's notice upheld in part.

Orders

  • Application for permission to appeal on the conspiracy issue refused.
  • Appeal on discretion issue dismissed.