In legal proceedings, it is essential to adhere to rules, directions or Court Orders. However, despite best efforts, parties may sometimes cause a breach, which will lead to a sanction. In these situations, obtaining “relief from sanction” becomes crucial and offers a way to rectify the mistake. This ensures that justice is not compromised due to procedural errors.
I have had to seek relief for my litigated cases before. As humans, we are not immune to oversights and errors, which may cause a breach and require a remedy.
The key is not only to avoid the need for relief but also to know how to obtain it most effectively. from sanction,
Understanding relief from sanction
Relief from sanction is an automatic legal mechanism which can sometimes result in disproportionate outcomes. However, as per CPR 3.9, there is a reason for this. It is to encourage ‘litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost’ and ‘to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders’.
Relief from sanction seeks to find a balance between the need for procedural discipline and the ultimate goal of achieving substantive justice. This principle acknowledges that parties should not be excessively punished for minor or accidental procedural errors that do not undermine the integrity of the judicial process.
Why is relief from sanction needed?
There are several scenarios that may lead to a party requiring relief from sanction. However, these can be broadly categorised.
- Technical Errors: Mistakes such as missing deadlines or formatting errors that do not affect the substance of the case.
- Unforeseen Circumstances: Events outside of a party’s control, such as sudden illness, technological failures, or unexpected emergencies, which prevent compliance with court Orders.
- Miscommunication or Misunderstanding: Instances of unintentional non-compliance resulting from a party’s misunderstanding of a court order or rule.
One thing is for certain. There needs to be an actual sanction for relief to be needed.
How do the Courts consider an application for relief?
When considering applications for relief from sanction, the Court will exercise discretion and weigh the interests of justice against the need for procedural compliance. Judges are mindful of striking a fair balance between enforcing procedural rules and avoiding unduly harsh penalties for minor infractions, while the overriding objective is to deal with cases justly and efficiently.
How do they do this? By following the three-stage Deton test in Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, which consists of the following stages:-
- Was the breach serious or significant?
- Why did the breach occur?
- In all the circumstances should relief be granted?
Tips for effective relief from sanction applications
If you’ve never applied for relief from sanctions before, don’t worry. While the process may seem straightforward, some applications lack the evidence needed to get the application home. That’s why it’s important to make sure you have all the information you need to make a successful application. After all, the consequences of not getting relief from sanctions can be severe.
These are the top tips for making an application for relief:-
- Set out a chronology of events at the start of any application statement. Provide a summary of how the breach occurred and any relevant evidence, such as correspondence. This can be a crucial factor in deciding whether relief should be granted as it helps the Court understand why the breach occurred.
- Consider whether it is worth contesting Stage 1 and 2 of the Denton test. It can be very hard to argue that a breach was not serious or significant. Some may argue that it falls on the lower end of the spectrum. The reason for the breach is often innocent or unintentional, but this is typically insufficient to grant relief. Not getting relief at stages 1 and 2 of the Denton test isn’t fatal. It shows the seriousness of the breach and lack of justification. The Court considers these at stage 3, along with all other relevant factors.
- Parties can consent to a relief application, but the Court still needs to approve the application. Some people believe that a third party cannot give consent for relief, but this is actually a misconception. It is not sufficient to simply file a consent Order and expect approval from the Court. The applicant must submit an application explaining why relief is necessary. A Consent Order simply shows that the third party approves of the application and the terms being sought. However, filing a Consent Order on its own may result in rejection or a hearing listed to hear the applicant’s submission.
- Make the application as soon as possible, even if you haven’t obtained consent from the third party yet. Promptness is crucial when applying for relief. Delaying an application before seeking relief will work against you. After filing a consent order, any hearing listed can be vacated by including appropriate terms in the order.
- Avoid asking applications for relief on paper. This may seem like an odd suggestion, but if a judge denies relief from sanctions on paper, there can be significant consequences. I have personally experienced this. My application on paper was refused by a DDJ. After the Order was made without a hearing, I attempted to apply to vary it. However, the Defendant argued that the Court lacked jurisdiction to hear the application. The Defendant claimed that the correct approach was to appeal the decision. The Defendant’s argument was cleverly made because I had asked the court to deal with it on paper. Therefore, it was not made in the absence of the parties because I had put forward written submissions. Although I was able to resolve the issue, which the Defendant intended to appeal, it is advisable to avoid requesting a relief application to be decided on paper to avoid a potentially costly outcome if refused. This topic could be discussed further at another time.
- Don’t stop. Continue to comply with Court directions and preparation of the case. One important factor to consider is whether a fair resolution of the matter is possible without compromising the integrity of the proceedings should relief be granted. Some parties in the past simply stop with the litigation and when it comes to the Court granting relief are criticised for doing nothing when they could take steps to ensure that the matter will continue uninterrupted. Document and demonstrate anything that can ensure minimal disruption to the claim, even if there are no steps you can take. If you invite the third party to continue and they refuse, evidence it. The Court will not take kindly to opportunism.
Conclusion
The relief from sanction is a critical safety net in the complex world of legal proceedings. It offers parties a chance to correct procedural mistakes without facing overly harsh penalties. By balancing the need for procedural compliance with the ultimate goal of achieving fair justice, this legal principle guarantees that minor errors do not derail the legal process or compromise the intended disposal of claims and disputes.
Over the years, the law in respect of obtaining relief has developed as further authorities are handed down. When navigating the complexities of demonstrating why relief should be granted, parties can consider the various case laws (some of which are fact-specific to an applicant’s case) and use the tips in this article to ensure the claim makes it safely through the dangerous waters.
Information
AJH Advocacy Limited, a Limited Company which is regulated by the Bar Standards Boards (entity number 190758), ceases trading on the 12th January 2026.
From the 12th January 2026 and onwards, Alec Hancock will practice as a Barrister at Magdalen Chambers in Exeter. For instructions on matters on or after 12th January 2026, please contact Magdalen Chambers via clerks@magdalenchambers.co.uk or by telephone on 01392 285 200.