Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) (16 October 2019)

Michael v Lillitos [2019] EWHC 2716 (QB) (16 October 2019)

The refusal to grant relief from sanction was wrong because, although the breach was significant, it was near the bottom of the range of seriousness, had no impact on the efficient conduct of litigation, and the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate to the breach, especially given the substantial detriment to the appellant and the lack of prejudice to the respondent.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2716 (QB)
Parties
Appellant: Andreas Michael; Respondent: Eleanor Lillitos
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
16 October 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Relief From Sanction
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Unless Orders, Rent Arrears, Set Off, Business Rates Liability
Civil Procedure Landlord and Tenant Relief From Sanctions Unless Orders Rent Arrears Set Off Business Rates Liability

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 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andreas Michael

Appellant

Eleanor Lillitos

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Relief From Sanction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the refusal to grant relief from sanction for breach of an unless order was correct
  2. 2 Whether the breach (failure to pay by bank transfer) was serious or significant
  3. 3 Whether all relevant circumstances were properly considered under the Denton test

Ratio Decidendi

The refusal to grant relief from sanction was wrong because, although the breach was significant, it was near the bottom of the range of seriousness, had no impact on the efficient conduct of litigation, and the sanction imposed was wholly disproportionate to the breach, especially given the substantial detriment to the appellant and the lack of prejudice to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Relief from sanction granted to the appellant
  • Judgment against the appellant set aside to the extent of the defence and counterclaim