We use cookies to improve our site and your experience. By continuing to browse on this website you accept the use of cookies. Read more...

Procedure: Relief from sanctions where fraud is alleged: Gentry v. Miller and UK Insurance Limited [2016] EWCA Civ 141:

In this case, the Court of Appeal considered the approach to applications for relief from sanctions and setting aside a judgement in default in a case where the defaulting party delayed in applying for relief, but was alleging that the claim was fraudulent.

Allowing the Claimant’s second appeal, the court dismissed the insurer’s applications for relief. Cases where fraud is alleged are not exempt from the application of the rules and the test in Mitchell and Denton. A default judgement will not be set aside as a matter of course because a claim is potentially fraudulent.

Going through the Denton guidance, it was accepted that the breach was serious or significant, there was some excuse for the failure to act but there was inexcusable delay in making the applications.

The applications failed the last stage in Denton. When considering all the circumstances of the case and the factors in CPR 3.9(1)(a) and (b), Vos LJ indicated that insurers, as professional litigants, “are in a particularly good position to conduct litigation efficiently and proportionately and to comply with rules and orders”. The fact that the insurer was not a party to the claim was no excuse, the insurer should have taken positive steps to protect its interests from the moment it admitted liability.

Vos LJ, remarked that the decision ‘may seem harsh’ but explained that “Mitchell and Denton represented a turning point in the need for litigation to be undertaken efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for the rules and orders of the court to be obeyed” and insurers, as professional litigants, were “particularly qualified to respect this change and must do so”.

It is a reminder of the importance of acting promptly in an application for relief from sanctions and an application to set aside judgment. 

Emily Davies / 4th Apr 2016


The information and any commentary on the law contained on this web site is provided free of charge for information purposes only. Every reasonable effort is made to make the information and commentary accurate and up to date, but no responsibility for its accuracy and correctness, or for any consequences of relying on it, is assumed by any member of Chambers. The information and commentary does not, and is not intended to, amount to legal advice to any person on a specific case or matter. You are strongly advised to obtain specific, personal advice from a lawyer about your case or matter and not to rely on the information or comments on this site. No responsibility is accepted for the content or accuracy of linked sites.

Download as PDF

Back to News