Lakatamia v SU

Factual and Procedural Background

This opinion concerns an application for an extension of time to file an appeal against a committal order made by a High Court judge on 29 March 2019. The committal order arose from multiple breaches of freezing orders, disclosure orders, and orders preventing the Defendant from leaving the jurisdiction. The Defendant was held in custody at a prison since the committal order was made. The appeal notice was filed four months late, well beyond the 21-day time limit prescribed by the Civil Procedure Rules (CPR).

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether an extension of time should be granted for filing an appeal notice against a committal order made for breaches of court orders.
2. How to apply the three-stage test for relief from sanctions as established in Denton v T. H. White and its application to an extension of time request.
3. The significance of the merits of the appeal in deciding whether to grant an extension of time in cases involving committal orders.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The delay in filing the appeal notice was due to the Defendant disinstructing his lawyers and corresponding through a McKenzie friend, who is not considered a valid excuse for delay under established case law.
• The Defendant lacked access to the required court fee of £1,199, which delayed the filing. A fee remission was later arranged enabling the appeal notice to be filed.
• The Defendant's human rights were engaged because he was in custody, and the time limits should not be applied too strictly in such circumstances.
• The appeal was listed as a rolled-up hearing, implying the merits of the appeal should be considered alongside the extension of time application.

Respondent's Arguments

• The delay was a serious and significant breach of the procedural rules.
• The absence of legal representation or use of a McKenzie friend does not excuse the delay.
• The Defendant had funds available to pay the court fee, and no satisfactory explanation was provided for failure to pay earlier.
• The merits of the appeal were extremely weak, particularly concerning the non-disclosure of substantial assets and attempts to flee the jurisdiction.

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court first acknowledged that the appeal notice was filed significantly late, constituting a serious and significant breach of the rules. It applied the three-stage test from Denton v White to evaluate the request for an extension of time. The court rejected the reasons given for delay, including the Defendant’s lack of legal representation and the inability to pay the court fee promptly, noting that funds were available and no adequate explanation was provided for the delay in payment.

The court also considered the Defendant’s human rights arguments but held that time limits for appeals, even those involving imprisonment, are permissible if not excessively short or strictly enforced. The merits of the appeal were found to be extremely weak, particularly regarding the failure to disclose substantial assets and an attempt to flee the jurisdiction, both serious contempts underpinning the committal order.

Evidence issues relating to witness statements were addressed, with the court noting no procedural objections were raised at the hearing despite legal representation. The judge’s findings of fact, including the Defendant’s beneficial interest in undisclosed properties and the rejected explanation for fleeing the jurisdiction, were accepted without challenge.

Balancing all factors, the court concluded that the extension of time should not be granted.

Holding and Implications

Application for extension of time refused.

The court’s decision results in the dismissal of the extension application, meaning the appeal against the committal order cannot proceed due to the late filing. No new precedent was established; the ruling applies established principles concerning relief from sanctions and procedural compliance in appeals against committal orders.