Dhanji & Anor v Najar & Ors

Dhanji & Anor v Najar & Ors

The breach was serious and significant, and there was no good or satisfactory explanation for the default, which was due to incompetence by the defendants' solicitors. However, the conduct did not reach the threshold of being unrelievable, and the inconvenience could be addressed through costs. Therefore, relief from sanctions was granted, extending time for filing and service of the defence and counterclaim.

Parties
Claimant: Razahussein Dhanji; Claimant: Riazali Dhanji; Defendant: Mahmood Al-Najar; Defendant: Julie Al-Najar; Defendant: The Trustee of the Hannah Al-Najar Trust; Defendant: The Trustee of the Sophie Al-Najar Trust; Defendant: The Trustee of the Gabriella Al-Najar Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 January 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Default Judgment and Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Claimants' application dismissed; defendants' application allowed.
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Breach of Procedural Rules, Debarring Orders
Civil Procedure Insolvency Trusts Default Judgment Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Breach of Procedural Rules Debarring 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 1 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Razahussein Dhanji

Claimant

Riazali Dhanji

Claimant

Mahmood Al-Najar

Defendant

Julie Al-Najar

Defendant

The Trustee of the Hannah Al-Najar Trust

Defendant

The Trustee of the Sophie Al-Najar Trust

Defendant

The Trustee of the Gabriella Al-Najar Trust

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications: Default Judgment and Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for late filing and service of defence and counterclaim
  2. 2 Whether default judgment and debarring orders should be made against the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The breach was serious and significant, and there was no good or satisfactory explanation for the default, which was due to incompetence by the defendants' solicitors. However, the conduct did not reach the threshold of being unrelievable, and the inconvenience could be addressed through costs. Therefore, relief from sanctions was granted, extending time for filing and service of the defence and counterclaim.

Court Disposition

Claimants' application dismissed; defendants' application allowed.

Orders

  • Time for first and second defendants to file defence and counterclaim extended to 21st November 2016.
  • Time for service of defence and counterclaim on claimants extended to 4pm on the day of judgment.