Balengani v Sharifpoor

Balengani v Sharifpoor

The claimant failed to act promptly after learning of the orders and was aware of the proceedings at all material times. He did not satisfy the mandatory requirements for setting aside the orders under CPR r 39.3(5) and failed to justify relief from sanctions under the Denton principles. The applications to set aside the orders from both hearings were refused.

Parties
Claimant: Siamak Feridoni Balengani; Defendant: Mostafa Sharifpoor
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Judgment and Related Orders
Outcome
Application refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Relief From Sanctions, Non Attendance at Trial, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment Relief From Sanctions Non Attendance at Trial Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Siamak Feridoni Balengani

Claimant

Mostafa Sharifpoor

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Judgment and Related Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's application to set aside judgment and orders made in his absence should be granted
  2. 2 Whether the claimant acted promptly upon learning of the orders
  3. 3 Whether the claimant had a good reason for non-attendance

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to act promptly after learning of the orders and was aware of the proceedings at all material times. He did not satisfy the mandatory requirements for setting aside the orders under CPR r 39.3(5) and failed to justify relief from sanctions under the Denton principles. The applications to set aside the orders from both hearings were refused.

Court Disposition

Application refused

Orders

  • Claimant's applications to set aside the orders of 7 April 2014 and 30 June 2014 are refused.
  • Defendant's cross-application falls away.