A litigant in person who missed a deadline after his solicitors came off the record cannot plead ignorance to escape sanctions, the High Court has ruled.
The first defendant in National House-Building Council v Hodson Developments Ltd & Ors had applied for relief from sanctions after filing his costs budget later than the deadline of 30 May. This deadline had been set in accordance with Civil Procedure Rules as being 21 days before the date of the first case management conference, but in the event the defendant’s budget was only filed one day before the CMC.
The court heard that the defendant’s solicitors Gowlings had terminated its retainer on 14 May with a warning about the consequences of not filing a costs budget in time. The defendant pointed out that the date of 30 May was not stated in the termination letter and he had not realised this was the deadline.
Mr Recorder Singer KC, sitting as a judge of the technology and construction court, said it ‘would not have been a difficult exercise by any stretch of the imagination’ for a litigant to work out when the deadline should have been, or at least ask when it was.
The judge suggested that the defendant had been hoping to persuade Gowlings to stay on the record, which brought with it a ‘very significant risk’ that something bad might happen in the meantime.
‘It seems perfectly clear that the first defendant either knew from what was sent to him or should have known, and from his knowledge of the case generally, that cost budgets were required to be served, and even if he did not fully understand the need for it to be filed by 30 May, he did know that one was required,’ added Singer.
The underlying case had related to a £5m property development dispute claim against three defendants, which had been subject to a planning inquiry in the first half of 2025.
The judge said there had been a ‘clear lack of engagement’ in the litigation by the first defendant, possibly due to being distracted by the inquiry. While that was an important matter, so too was the litigation which is subject to rules which needed to be complied with.
Singer added: ‘It seems to me that [the compliance breaches] are consistent with a party which does not take its obligations to comply with court orders seriously, nor to be taking this litigation terribly seriously.’
The other two defendants in the claim filed each filed their budget a day late and had each previously been granted relief from sanctions. The total joint estimated defence costs budget was around £260,000. The effect of the judge’s ruling, which was made in September but only published this week, is that the first defendant will be treated as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees. The first defendant may still be able to recover costs already incurred.
