Christie v Magnet Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Gross |
| Judgment Date | 23 June 2016 |
| Neutral Citation | [2016] EWCA Civ 906 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | A2/2015/1412 |
| Date | 23 June 2016 |
[2016] EWCA Civ 906
Lord Justice Gross
A2/2015/1412
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
(MRS JUSTICE MCGOWAN)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Mr B Pressman appeared on behalf of the Applicant
The Respondent was not present and was not represented
This claim dates back to an incident in 2007. Miss C, the Applicant, alleges that there was a sexual assault at work. She has told me today that she has suffered greatly in the years since, both psychologically and physically. She regards it as an "abomination" that her claim should have been struck out.
I obviously have sympathy for any suffering Miss C has endured but the question I have to deal with today is whether whether I should grant permission to appeal so that this claim should come to this court. To do so, this claim must satisfy the second appeals test. The second appeals test involves the claim raising an important point of principle or practice or that there is some other compelling reason for the Court of Appeal to hear it.
The claim manifestly raises no important point of principle or practice.
The question as to whether there is a compelling reason, although open textured to an extent is not open-ended. The mere fact of suffering is something I can consider but how much weight to attach to it is more questionable.
I turn to the procedural history to see how we have got to where we are today. In March 2014 Master Eastman made an "unless order": unless Miss C complied with obligations as to disclosure and witness statements within a certain time the claim would be automatically struck out. There is some dispute from Miss C as to whether she knew about the unless order provision or if it reached her. It is unnecessary for me to determine that. This matter came at least twice before the courts subsequently and on neither occasion does that point appear to have been canvassed; certainly it did not feature in the judgments of those concerned.
The unless order was not complied with. An unless order means what it says. If a party does not comply with it, the sanctions automatically follow. Even if the consequences in the individual litigation are not immense, the consequences for the system are. It is also important to appreciate that by 2014 seven years had passed since from the date of the incident. Miss C had also benefited from a number of stays and a certain degree of indulgence in the procedural timetable, flowing from having been a litigant in person at various points in time. There is, however, nothing which allows a litigant in person to simply depart from the rules completely.
At all events, the matter came back before Master Eastman in November 2014 when Miss C sought relief from sanctions. It is important to emphasise that at that hearing Miss C was represented by counsel. Master Eastman refused relief.
There is a point to be made that he focused on the first limb of the Denton test and observed (it was no doubt an ex tempore judgment) that the failures were not trivial; he regarded them as fundamental and said that, in that case, he did not need to go further. So far as he said that, I do not agree — but when one looks at the transcript overall, the reality is that he looked at all three limbs of the Denton test.
He went on to say that if he was wrong about the failures being fundamental, he needed to ask if there was a good reason for them. He said there was not. He also said that he regarded it as a very stale action. He was plainly right about that. He had, therefore, as it seems to me, taken into account the overall circumstances of the matter. Having done so, he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Everwarm Ltd v BN Rendering Ltd
...3.9 to consider.” 29 In developing his theme about the particular nature of “unless” orders, Mr Quirk also referred to C v Magnet Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 906 in which Gross LJ said at [6]: “[6] The unless order was not complied with. An unless order means what it says. If a party does not comp......
-
Ince Gordon Dadds LLP v Mellitah Oil & Gas BVe
...under CPR 13.3 was accepted, and the three stage test was applied, by the Court of Appeal in Gentry v Miller (Practice Note) [2016] EWCA Civ 906. However, in Cunico Marketing FZE v Daskalakis and another [2018] EWHC 3382 (Comm) at [39] Andrew Baker J raised the question of whether this is......
-
PXC v AB College and Others
...under CPR r 13.3 was accepted, and the three-stage test was applied by the Court of Appeal in Gentry v Miller (Practice Note) [2016] EWCA Civ 906. However, in Cunico Marketing FZE v Daskalakis [2019] 1 WLR 2881, para 39 Andrew Baker J raised the question of whether this is right, because th......
-
Belgravia International Bank & Trust Company Ltd v Bretton Woods Corporation
...Adams) 2018/PRO/ cpr/00035, which she indicated set out some general case management powers. The court also cited C v Magnet Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 906 as authority for the proposition that with unless orders, non-compliance means that sanctions will automatically follow. Further, the sanctio......