Tibbles v SIG Plc (t/a Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518 (26 April 2012)

Tibbles v SIG Plc (t/a Asphaltic Roofing Supplies) [2012] EWCA Civ 518 (26 April 2012)

The court held that the power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke an order is limited and should not be exercised where the only basis is the parties' or court's oversight of applicable rules, especially after significant delay and after final judgment. The application to vary was made too late, caused prejudice to the respondent, and did not fall within the primary circumstances justifying variation. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[2012] EWCA Civ 518
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Tibbles; Respondent / Defendant: SIG PLC (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Luton County Court, Judgment of HHJ Elly, Following Variation of Order by District Judge Wilding
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Variation or Revocation of Court Orders, CPR 3.1(7), Costs Assessment, Small Claims Track, Fast Track, Delay in Applications, Finality of Orders
Civil Procedure Variation or Revocation of Court Orders CPR 3.1(7) Costs Assessment Small Claims Track Fast Track Delay in Applications Finality of Orders

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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tibbles

Appellant / Claimant

SIG PLC (trading as Asphaltic Roofing Supplies)

Respondent / Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Luton County Court, Judgment of HHJ Elly, Following Variation of Order by District Judge Wilding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court had jurisdiction under CPR 3.1(7) to vary its own order regarding costs after significant delay and after final judgment
  2. 2 Whether ignorance or oversight of CPR 44.11 by parties and judge justified variation of the order
  3. 3 Whether the slip rule (CPR 40.12) applied

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the power under CPR 3.1(7) to vary or revoke an order is limited and should not be exercised where the only basis is the parties' or court's oversight of applicable rules, especially after significant delay and after final judgment. The application to vary was made too late, caused prejudice to the respondent, and did not fall within the primary circumstances justifying variation. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No variation of the original order; costs to be assessed in accordance with the original allocation and CPR 44.11