PI Brief Update

'In Time' Application for Time Extension Refused & No Relief From Sanctions: Six-Figure Claim Lost (Krasniqi v Watford Timber Co. Ltd) - Charles Bagot, Hardwicke

14/07/16. Krasniqi v Watford Timber Company Limited (2016) 13 April, CLCC DJ Parfitt, as yet unreported [Refer to the judgment]. This is an example of a case in which the Court refused to grant an “in time” application for an extension of time, made before the expiry of the deadline in an unless order, despite there being no trial date listed and this being a liability admitted multi-track claim for a six-figure sum. The effect of the refusal was that the claim remained struck out and the Claimant was ordered to repay £21,000 in interim payments and make a payment on account of costs of £25,000.

A separate relief from sanctions application was also refused, thought to be one of the first applications of the Court of Appeal’s latest decision on CPR 3.9, British Gas Trading Ltd. v Oak Cash and Carry Ltd. [2016] EWCA Civ 153, stressing the seriousness and significance of failing to comply with an unless order and that a lack of promptness in applying for relief is a critical factor.

The case also provides an interesting analysis of:

(i) whether a Part 18 Request for further information which seeks both an explanation, as well as documents, is properly complied with by provision of a written reply, or whether compliance requires the documents requested as well; and

(ii) whether a standard provision in an order made without a hearing, requiring an application to vary it to be made within 7 days, meant that a later application prior to the deadline for compliance with the terms of the order was to be treated as an “out of time” extension application, akin to relief from sanctions or as an “in time” application to be considered as a matter of open discretion bearing in mind the overriding objective...

Image ©iStockphoto.com/Sashkinw

Read more (PIBULJ subscribers only)...