Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
See more information ...
Click here to read the full judgment
Health and Home Ltd & Ors v Elite Property Holdings Ltd & Ors
Smart Summary
Factual and Procedural Background
The Plaintiff commenced insolvency-related proceedings in September 2021 against several Defendants, including Company B, asserting claims under the Insolvency Act 1986. Company B's UK property assets were the subject of contested title transfers which the Appellant sought to register at the Land Registry in November 2024. The Plaintiff obtained freezing and ancillary orders and the Appellant was joined to the proceedings by an order of Judge Mohyuddin. The joinder order required the Appellant to file evidence by 2 December 2024. The Appellant filed several witness statements and further amended its application under CPR Part 23. A Directions Order (dated 13 January 2025) set timetabled steps including service of Points of Claim, Points of Defence, standard disclosure, exchange of witness statements prepared in accordance with PD57AC, and a "final hearing for the determination" to be listed in a window after 13 May 2025.
The final hearing was listed to start on 18 June 2025. The Appellant served additional witness evidence and disclosure late (11 June 2025) without applying for an extension of time. On 19 June 2025 the Appellant applied retrospectively for extension of time to file and serve the late witness statement and related disclosure and for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. Judge Mohyuddin refused that application on 19 June 2025, and the Appellant's substantive application was withdrawn. The Appellant obtained permission to appeal and this Court (Judges King, Arnold and May) heard the appeal.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the hearing directed by the Directions Order (listed for 18–20 June 2025) was a "trial" for the purposes of CPR rule 32.10.
- If the hearing was a "trial", whether the Appellant required relief from sanction under CPR 3.9 for late service of a witness statement and associated disclosure.
- Whether the judge erred in refusing relief and/or in failing to consider alternative case management measures (e.g. adjournment on terms) instead of exclusionary sanction.
- Whether the judge was wrong to rely on the potential finality (res judicata) of the resulting judgment in concluding the hearing was a trial.
Arguments of the Parties
Appellant's Arguments
- The hearing was the final hearing of an application, not a "trial" within the meaning of rule 32.10; therefore relief from sanction under rule 3.9 was not required.
- The judge should have exercised alternative, proportionate case management powers (for example adjourning on terms or ordering costs) rather than refusing relief.
- The judge was wrong to treat the prospect of finality and res judicata as determinative that the hearing was a trial.
Respondents' Arguments
- The Directions Order and surrounding procedural steps (Points of Claim/Defence, standard disclosure, PD57AC-compliant witness statements, and a hearing including live evidence) demonstrated the hearing was a trial for the purposes of rule 32.10.
- The Appellant's breach was serious and significant, there was no good explanation for the late service, and the judge properly exercised discretion to refuse relief in all the circumstances.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent |
Rule or Principle Cited For |
Application by the Court |
| Denton v T. H. White Ltd [2014] EWHC 1537, [2014] 1 WLR 3298 |
Three-stage approach for applications for relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9. |
The court applied the Denton framework (seriousness/significance of breach; why default occurred; all circumstances) and noted the Appellant had not addressed the test in its evidence. |
| Chartwell Estate Agents Ltd v Fergies Properties SA [2014] EWCA Civ 506, [2014] 3 Costs LR 588 |
Rule 32.10 creates a sanction for non-compliance, requiring relief under CPR 3.9. |
The court accepted the principle that rule 32.10 imposes a sanction such that relief requires an application under rule 3.9. |
| R (Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633, [2015] 1 WLR 2472 |
Some time limits impose implied sanctions; relief requires CPR 3.9. |
The court cited the case as an example of implied sanctions and applied the same approach to rule 32.10. |
| Viegas v Cutrale [2024] EWCA Civ 1122, [2025] 1 WLR 1467 |
When no express sanction, the "ethos" of Denton may still apply to retrospective extension applications. |
The court distinguished cases where no sanction applies and noted the Denton ethos applies in that context; here, however, rule 32.10 did impose a sanction. |
| Forcelux Ltd v Binnie [2009] EWCA Civ 854, [2010] CP Rep 7 |
Whether a preliminary or summary hearing under specific rules constitutes a "trial". |
The court relied on Forcelux to show a hearing may be summary rather than a trial depending on context; it applied that reasoning but concluded the present Directions Order pointed to a trial. |
| Pickard v Roberts [2016] EWHC 187, [2016] BPIR 996 |
Context, purpose and procedural orders determine whether a hearing is a "trial"; finality and res judicata are relevant pointers. |
The court endorsed Pickard's approach and held that, on the facts and orders here, the hearing was a trial for rule 32.10 purposes. |
| Jones v Richard Slade & Co Ltd [2022] EWHC 1968, [2023] 1 WLR 383 |
Whether "Points of Claim" are "statements of case" as defined in CPR rule 2.3(1). |
The court noted the authority but treated Points of Claim as performing the same function as statements of case for present purposes. |
| Re Coniston Hotel (Kent) LLP [2013] EWHC 93 (Ch), [2013] 2 BCLC 405 |
Function and required particularity of Points of Claim in insolvency proceedings. |
The court relied on Re Coniston to explain that Points of Claim must set out facts concisely to enable final determination and thus supported characterising the hearing as a trial. |
| McTear v Engelhard [2016] EWCA Civ 487, [2016] 4 WLR 108 |
Uncertainty whether late disclosure under rule 31.21 attracts a sanction requiring relief under CPR 3.9. |
The court referenced McTear to show uncertainty about sanctions under rule 31.21 but held it unnecessary to resolve in the present appeal. |
| Yesss (A) Electrical Ltd v Warren [2024] EWCA Civ 14 |
Ethos of Denton applies to retrospective extension applications even where no sanction is expressed. |
The court referred to Yesss in explaining the distinction between extensions where no sanction exists and applications for relief from sanction; here rule 32.10 imposed a sanction. |
| [2025] EWHC 839 (Ch) |
Judgment in the Main Claim assessing substantive liability between the parties. |
The court noted the main-claim judgment finding the Plaintiff's claims substantially succeeded and that the properties were central to the dispute—relevant to the contention that the application hearing would have finality. |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The court identified the threshold question as what constitutes a "trial" for the purpose of rule 32.10, having regard to that rule's purpose of enforcing time limits for service of witness statements to ensure orderly preparation for trial. The court examined the Directions Order and the surrounding procedural matrix and concluded that the hearing listed for 18–20 June 2025 was a "trial" for rule 32.10 purposes because:
- The substantive issues to be determined were questions of beneficial ownership and other matters affecting substantive rights and liabilities.
- The Directions Order provided for Points of Claim and Points of Defence, standard disclosure, disclosure statements, exchange of witness statements prepared in accordance with PD57AC, and a final hearing that "shall include the live evidence of witnesses", indicating preparation for a final adjudication with live oral evidence.
- The Directions Order expressly described the hearing as "The final hearing for the determination of" the application; the resulting judgment would bind the Plaintiff and Appellant and have res judicata effect between them.
- Procedural indicia customarily associated with trials (disclosure obligations, witness statements, potential expert evidence and the requirement for live evidence) were present.
Given that rule 32.10 applied, the Appellant required relief from the sanction under CPR 3.9. Applying Denton, the judge found: the breach was serious and significant (late service of a lengthy witness statement close to trial); there was no satisfactory explanation for the default; and in all the circumstances it was proportionate to refuse relief because the Plaintiff and the court were entitled to expect compliance or an earlier application for extension. The judge also addressed the Appellant's argument about alternative measures and concluded that, given the nature and timing of the breach and the absence of an earlier application, refusal of relief was a proper exercise of case management discretion. The appellate court upheld those conclusions and dismissed the appeal.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED
Holding: The Court of Appeal dismissed the Appellant's appeal, upholding Judge Mohyuddin's determination that the scheduled hearing was a "trial" for the purposes of CPR rule 32.10 and that relief from the sanction under CPR 3.9 should be refused.
Implications: The direct consequence is that the Appellant was precluded from relying on the late witness statement and associated late material and its substantive application was withdrawn. The court treated the matter as a trial requiring strict compliance with trial preparation directions; no broader new precedent beyond the court's application of established authorities was announced.
Click here to read the full judgment