Altaf & Ors v Close Brothers Ltd [2021] EWHC 2823 (QB) (21 October 2021)

Altaf & Ors v Close Brothers Ltd [2021] EWHC 2823 (QB) (21 October 2021)

The District Judge's finding that the appellants failed to act promptly in applying to set aside judgment, as required by CPR 39.3(5), was properly and reasonably open to him. There was no real prospect of success on appeal, as the delay was not excused by the appellants' correspondence or status as litigants in person, and the substantive issues did not outweigh the procedural failure.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2823
Parties
Appellant: Mr Umar Altaf; Appellant: Mr Zeeshan Aurangzeb; Appellant: Mr Faizan Aurangzeb; Respondent: Close Brothers Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 October 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Reconsideration of Application for Permission to Appeal
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Judgment, Non Attendance at Trial, Promptness Under CPR 39.3, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Judgment Non Attendance at Trial Promptness Under CPR 39.3 Appeal Procedure

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Umar Altaf

Appellant

Mr Zeeshan Aurangzeb

Appellant

Mr Faizan Aurangzeb

Appellant

Close Brothers Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Reconsideration of Application for Permission to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to set aside judgment for non-attendance under CPR 39.3(5) on grounds of lack of promptness
  2. 2 Whether there is a viable appeal against the original trial judge's decision in the absence of the defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge's finding that the appellants failed to act promptly in applying to set aside judgment, as required by CPR 39.3(5), was properly and reasonably open to him. There was no real prospect of success on appeal, as the delay was not excused by the appellants' correspondence or status as litigants in person, and the substantive issues did not outweigh the procedural failure.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused