Getting Tougher With Relief From Sanctions Applications – Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd & Anor

In the case of Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd & Anor, the High Court has recently refused to grant relief from sanctions to a party where the solicitor at fault attempted to heavily rely on the pandemic restrictions.

Boxwood Leisure Ltd v Gleeson Construction Services Ltd & Anor

Case summary

A trainee solicitor sent a letter by email, attaching the particulars of a claim, acknowledgement of service forms and initial disclosure, but had failed to serve the Defendant’s solicitor with the sealed claim form. These documents were served on 8th September.

There had previously been a Court order setting out that the claim form and particulars of claim should be submitted by 10th September, which was already an extension of time taking account of the pandemic difficulties.

On 14th September, the Claimant’s solicitor realised that the documents had been served erroneously and re-sent all the documents, including the claim form. However, three days later, the Defendant’s solicitor replied stating that due to the claim form not being served in time, the proceedings were a nullity.

The Claimant’s solicitor proceeded to make an application for relief from sanctions and informed the Court that during ‘normal’ times, hard copies of the order would be circulated to a partner and numerous diarising steps would have been taken to avoid such incidents occurring.

Court decision

Mrs Justice O’Farrell, delivering her judgment, said that Boxwood could not establish that it took all reasonable steps to serve the claim form within the prescribed period ordered by the Court. She did not, therefore, have the power to extend the time for service. She further commented that if relief was granted Gleeson would suffer prejudice.

It was accepted by Mrs Justice O’Farrell that working away from the office during the pandemic would reduce the oversight of more junior solicitors, however having issued proceedings in circumstances where limitation was a live issue and where Gleeson had objected to the requested extensions of time for service of those proceedings, it was fundamental that the solicitors ensured that they met the dates ordered by the Court.