Daly & Anor v Ryan & Anor [2020] EWHC 2672 (Ch) (14 July 2020)

Daly & Anor v Ryan & Anor [2020] EWHC 2672 (Ch) (14 July 2020)

The defendants' application to set aside the May order was dismissed because they failed to comply with the procedural requirements for making an effective application within the prescribed time, did not provide evidence or justification for delay, and did not satisfy the test for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 as set out in Denton. The breach was serious and significant, no good reason for the default was provided, and granting relief would not further the overriding objective.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 2672 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Seamus Daly; Claimant: Photo Images Limited; Defendant: Thomas Gerrard Ryan; Defendant: Ryan Corporation (UK) Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Order; Costs Assessment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded to claimants
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Setting Aside Judgment, Costs Assessment, Case Management
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Setting Aside Judgment Costs Assessment 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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Seamus Daly

Claimant

Photo Images Limited

Claimant

Thomas Gerrard Ryan

Defendant

Ryan Corporation (UK) Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Order; Costs Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants should be granted relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 for late application to set aside judgment
  2. 2 Whether the application to set aside the May order should be allowed
  3. 3 Whether the costs claimed by the claimants are reasonable and proportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The defendants' application to set aside the May order was dismissed because they failed to comply with the procedural requirements for making an effective application within the prescribed time, did not provide evidence or justification for delay, and did not satisfy the test for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9 as set out in Denton. The breach was serious and significant, no good reason for the default was provided, and granting relief would not further the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded to claimants

Orders

  • Defendants' application to set aside the May order is dismissed
  • Defendants to pay claimants' costs of the application, summarily assessed at £14,400 including VAT