Midland Premier Properties Limited & Anor v Rakesh Singh Doal & Ors

Midland Premier Properties Limited & Anor v Rakesh Singh Doal & Ors

The application is abusive as the Defendants could and should have raised the grounds for partial relief in earlier applications, failed to act promptly, and caused prejudice to the Claimant and wasted court resources. The discretion under CPR 3.1(7) is not exercised as the circumstances do not justify variation of the orders, despite the court's previous indication that partial relief would have been granted if sought promptly.

Parties
Claimant: Midland Premier Properties Limited; Claimant: Sanman Property Management Limited; Defendant: Rakesh Singh Doal; Defendant: 2020 Living Limited; Defendant: Samuel Ginda; Defendant: Taylor Grange 2 Limited; Defendant: Taylor Grange DM Limited; Defendant: TGDM One Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2025
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Application to Vary Unless/debarring Orders and for Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Variation of Court Orders, Abuse of Process, Disclosure, Case Management
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Variation of Court Orders Abuse of Process Disclosure Case Management

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 5 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Midland Premier Properties Limited

Claimant

Sanman Property Management Limited

Claimant

Rakesh Singh Doal

Defendant

2020 Living Limited

Defendant

Samuel Ginda

Defendant

Taylor Grange 2 Limited

Defendant

Taylor Grange DM Limited

Defendant

TGDM One Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Application to Vary Unless/debarring Orders and for Relief From Sanctions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application to vary unless/debarring orders and for partial relief from sanctions is abusive
  2. 2 Whether the court should exercise discretion under CPR 3.1(7) to vary previous orders
  3. 3 Whether the Defendants should be permitted to defend the quantum issue

Ratio Decidendi

The application is abusive as the Defendants could and should have raised the grounds for partial relief in earlier applications, failed to act promptly, and caused prejudice to the Claimant and wasted court resources. The discretion under CPR 3.1(7) is not exercised as the circumstances do not justify variation of the orders, despite the court's previous indication that partial relief would have been granted if sought promptly.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application to vary the unless order and debarring order is refused.
  • No relief from sanctions is granted.