Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) (16 October 2019)
Although the appellant's breach of the unless order was significant, it was near the bottom of the range of seriousness, had no impact on the efficient conduct or cost of the litigation, and the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate. Relief from sanction should have been granted.
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2019] EWHC 2716
- Parties
- Appellant: Andreas Michael; Respondent: Eleanor Lillitos
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 16 October 2019
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Relief From Sanction
- Outcome
- Appeal allowed
- Legal Topics
- Relief From Sanctions, Unless Orders, Rent Arrears, Set Off, Business Rates Liability
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Andreas Michael
Appellant
Eleanor Lillitos
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal of Relief From Sanction
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the refusal to grant relief from sanction for breach of an unless order was correct
- 2 Whether the breach (failure to pay by bank transfer) was serious or significant
- 3 Whether the sanction imposed was proportionate in all the circumstances
Ratio Decidendi
Although the appellant's breach of the unless order was significant, it was near the bottom of the range of seriousness, had no impact on the efficient conduct or cost of the litigation, and the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate. Relief from sanction should have been granted.
Court Disposition
Appeal allowed
Orders
- Relief from sanction granted to the appellant
- Judgment against the appellant set aside
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment