[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] [DONATE]
	England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions >> Mangat v Mangat [2022] EWHC 3748 (Ch) (04 May 2022) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2022/3748.html Cite as: [2022] EWHC 3748 (Ch)

[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
BUSINESS AND PROPERTY COURTS OF ENGLAND AND WALES
CHANCERY APPEALS (ChD)

ON APPEAL FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT CENTRAL LONDON:
ORDER OF HHJ GERALD MADE ON 23 NOVEMBER 2021
CLAIM NO. H10CL383 IN THE BUSINESS AND PROPERTY WORK (CHANCERY) LIST
APPEAL REF: CH-2021-000263

		DATED: 4 May 2022

Mr Justice Marcus Smith

1. I have before me a renewed application made orally by Mr Young for permission to appeal an order made by HHJ Gerald the Central London Civil Justice Centre on 23 November 2021. The order that the Judge made was supported by a detailed judgment in which the Judge explained why he was refusing relief from sanctions in relation to the failure in a timely way to submit a costs budget.
2. The position regarding a failure to comply with the timescale of a costs budget is, as Mr Young for the intended appellants stated, draconian. That is true but that is what the Rules say. The fact is if one does not in a timely manner file a costs budget then one's costs are limited to effectively a nominal amount.
3. It is clear law binding on me from the Court of Appeal that the question of relief from sanctions must be considered by way of a three-stage test. I set out that test in my reasons for my refusing permission to appeal on the papers and I am not going to repeat those stages here. However, the fact is that one does not obtain relief from sanctions merely because there is no prejudice to the other side nor because there is time in the court diary to consider the budget that has been compiled too late in breach of the court rules. I accept that both of those points are relevant matters to take into account but the fact is, before one does so there is Denton stage two to consider which is the reasons for the breach.
4. The Judge concluded, and I think he was right in this - frankly, right or wrong is not a matter for me; the question is whether the Judge made an appealable error - that there was no good reason for the failure to file a costs budget and that the error was a serious one. It was, admittedly, not deliberate, it was an administrative error, but he considered that there was no good reason for the breach and that was a conclusion that was open to the Judge.
5. In those circumstances, it seems to me that the Judge was perfectly entitled to conclude that the Denton test for relief from sanctions had not been met and I see no appealable error on the case that could justify troubling an appellate court with this matter. The fact is that it is irrelevant whether I or any other judge in the Judge's position would have reached the same or a different conclusion on this matter. The question is whether the Judge misapplied the Denton test and he emphatically did not.
6. In those circumstances, the prospect of a successful appeal is so close to nil that it would be wrong for me to entertain an application for permission to appeal and I therefore refuse the application for the reasons given in my written order and for the additional reasons that I have given now.