We would like to ensure that you are still receiving content that you find useful – please confirm that you would like to continue to receive ILO newsletters.
10 September 2019
Two days too late
Claimant's application for relief from sanction and two-day extension
Appeal of grant of relief and extension
What did the High Court say?
How does this decision affect you?
An appeal was recently lost after an application for an oral hearing was made just two days late.(1)
This decision is a timely reminder of the strictness of court deadlines and of the importance of being upfront with the court which, on this occasion, was unwilling to forgive ambiguity as to whether the deadline had been met.
The claimant, Ms Rafaela Evans, applied for permission to appeal a decision of a costs judge dismissing her application for an assessment of the defendant's costs. The application to appeal was considered on the papers and a copy of the order dismissing the application was received by the claimant's solicitors on 21 May 2019. The claimant then had seven days to apply for a hearing to renew the application for permission to appeal. The events unfolded as follows:
On 6 June 2019 the claimant applied for relief from sanction and a retrospective extension of two days to apply for an oral hearing for permission to appeal. The application was supported by a witness statement from the claimant's solicitor, who stated that as soon as the delay or breach was brought to his attention, his firm had written to the court to request an oral hearing (which was the 30 May letter).
On 11 June 2019 the court granted relief on the basis that the extension had been short and the default not serious or significant.
The defendant appealed the 11 June 2019 decision and drew the court's attention to the inconsistency between the 30 May letter and the 6 June witness statement. The witness statement stated that it had been the realisation that the application was two days late which had prompted the 30 May letter, whereas the 30 May letter asserted that the final day for the application had been 30 May.
The claimant then served a further witness statement from her solicitors. This explained that:
The High Court was dissatisfied with the claimant's further evidence. It found in favour of the defendant and refused the claimant's application for relief from sanction. As a result, the claimant will not be able to pursue her appeal.
The judge took the view that the court had been seriously misled by the 6 June witness statement, for which he considered that there was no adequate explanation. The judge was even more concerned with the possibility that the claimant's solicitors had known that the application was two days late on 30 May but hoped to pull the wool over the court's eyes by asserting that the application was on time. Matters were made even worse by the claimant's failure to serve the 30 May letter on the defendant, which might have given the defendant the opportunity to make representations that the application was out of time.
The calculation of time periods under the English Civil Procedural Rules can be complicated but is essential to get right. This decision is a reminder that an entire case may stand or fall on the correct calculation – as well as a reminder of the importance of accuracy and clarity in court correspondence and evidence.
For further information on this topic please contact Davina Given or Karina Plain at RPC by telephone (+44 20 3060 6000) or email (firstname.lastname@example.org or email@example.com). The RPC website can be accessed at www.rpc.co.uk.
The materials contained on this website are for general information purposes only and are subject to the disclaimer.
ILO is a premium online legal update service for major companies and law firms worldwide. In-house corporate counsel and other users of legal services, as well as law firm partners, qualify for a free subscription.