Mannion v Ginty
The judge at first instance correctly exercised discretion under CPR 3.9, considering all relevant factors including the history of non-compliance, promptness, explanation for delay, and the effect on both parties. The refusal of relief was not disproportionate and did not infringe Articles 6 or 8 ECHR. There was no error in principle or plainly wrong decision to justify appellate interference.
- Parties
- Appellant: Mannion; Respondent: Ginty
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2012
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Relief Against Sanctions
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Relief From Sanctions, Strike Out of Defence, Case Management, Right to a Fair Trial, Right to Respect for Home
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mannion
Appellant
Ginty
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Relief Against Sanctions
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the refusal of relief against sanctions was disproportionate and infringed Articles 6 and 8 ECHR
- 2 Whether the judge properly exercised discretion under CPR 3.9
Ratio Decidendi
The judge at first instance correctly exercised discretion under CPR 3.9, considering all relevant factors including the history of non-compliance, promptness, explanation for delay, and the effect on both parties. The refusal of relief was not disproportionate and did not infringe Articles 6 or 8 ECHR. There was no error in principle or plainly wrong decision to justify appellate interference.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- Appeal dismissed; order of first instance judge refusing relief against sanctions stands
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