Smailes & Anor v McNally & Anor [2015] EWHC 1755 (Ch) (22 June 2015)

Smailes & Anor v McNally & Anor [2015] EWHC 1755 (Ch) (22 June 2015)

Relief from sanctions was refused because the breach of the disclosure order was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and the overall conduct of the Liquidators demonstrated a pattern of delay and inadequate compliance. The interests of justice and the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost outweighed the Liquidators' arguments for relief.

Citation
[2015] EWHC 1755 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: Robert Derek Smailes; Applicant: Stephen Blandford Ryman; Respondent: John McNally; Respondent: George MacLean
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 June 2015
Procedural Posture
Application for Relief From Sanctions in Insolvency Proceedings / Post Strike Out, Application for Relief From Sanction Following Court of Appeal Decision
Outcome
Application for relief from sanctions refused; proceedings remain struck out.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Disclosure Obligations, Strike Out of Proceedings, Standard Disclosure, Reasonable Search for Documents
Insolvency Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Disclosure Obligations Strike Out of Proceedings Standard Disclosure Reasonable Search for Documents

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Derek Smailes

Applicant

Stephen Blandford Ryman

Applicant

John McNally

Respondent

George MacLean

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Relief From Sanctions in Insolvency Proceedings / Post Strike Out, Application for Relief From Sanction Following Court of Appeal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Liquidators should be granted relief from the sanction of strike out imposed for failure to comply with a disclosure order under CPR Part 31.
  2. 2 Whether the breach of the disclosure order was serious and significant and if there was a good reason for the default.
  3. 3 Whether the overall conduct of the Liquidators justified refusal of relief from sanctions.

Ratio Decidendi

Relief from sanctions was refused because the breach of the disclosure order was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the default, and the overall conduct of the Liquidators demonstrated a pattern of delay and inadequate compliance. The interests of justice and the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost outweighed the Liquidators' arguments for relief.

Court Disposition

Application for relief from sanctions refused; proceedings remain struck out.

Orders

  • Relief from sanctions under CPR r.3.9 refused.
  • Proceedings remain struck out pursuant to the Default Order.