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 was properly and reasonably open to him. The application was made six weeks after the Appellants learned of the judgment, which was not excused by correspondence or the need for clarification. The requirement of promptness is a mandatory precondition under CPR 39.3(5), and the District Judge's evaluative conclusion was not erroneous. There is no real prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 2823 (QB)
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 Permission to Appeal After Refusal on the Papers
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 2 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 Permission to Appeal After Refusal on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the District Judge erred in refusing to set aside judgment for lack of promptness under CPR 39.3(5)
  2. 2 Whether the original trial judge erred in proceeding in the absence of the Second Appellant
  3. 3 Whether delay in making the application to set aside was justified

Ratio Decidendi

The District Judge's finding that the Appellants failed to act promptly in applying to set aside judgment was properly and reasonably open to him. The application was made six weeks after the Appellants learned of the judgment, which was not excused by correspondence or the need for clarification. The requirement of promptness is a mandatory precondition under CPR 39.3(5), and the District Judge's evaluative conclusion was not erroneous. There is no real prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused