Gill v Anand: Relief from sanctions refused after repeated breaches of unless orders

The High Court has dismissed an application for relief from sanctions in Gill v Anand, where a defendant's persistent failure to comply with court orders resulted in his defence being struck out and damages assessed at over £4.2 million.

Tarnjit Singh Gill had issued proceedings in September 2020 seeking repayment of six loans totalling £3,280,000 allegedly made to Sanjay Anand in early 2018. Anand contended the loans were actually made to the second defendant, Bobby Singh, who never participated in the proceedings.

Following a series of procedural defaults, Master McCloud made an unless order on 22 February 2024 requiring Anand to pay £350,000 into court and £11,010 in costs by 7 March 2024, failing which his defence would be struck out. When Anand failed to comply, Master Gidden struck out the defence on 14 March 2024 and granted summary judgement for a sum to be assessed. Deputy High Court Judge O'Neill subsequently assessed damages at £4,276,208.75 plus interest and costs in December 2024, though execution was stayed pending the relief application.

Anand sought relief from sanction pursuant to CPR 3.9, citing depression, anxiety, substance dependency, divorce proceedings, his mother's illness and death, family breakdown, and loss of employment and inheritance. He also alleged difficulties corresponding with his direct access counsel.

In support, Anand provided a therapist's letter, correspondence from a friend and former drugs welfare worker, and a psychological report from Dr Liliya Korallo diagnosing severe anxiety and depression. Notably, Dr Korallo did not opine on Anand's capacity or ability to conduct his affairs, despite express instructions to do so.

Deputy Master Lorna Skinner KC applied the three-stage Denton test. At the first stage, the breaches were found to be serious and significant, with two unless orders breached over a substantial period, culminating in judgement and assessment of damages.

At the second stage, whilst acknowledging Anand's mental health difficulties and significant life events, the Deputy Master found these did not constitute good reason for the defaults. The evidence demonstrated that Anand was, at least periodically, able to give instructions, settle evidence and represent himself in court. Critically, he had engaged with the litigation on the very day Master McCloud made the unless order and applied for permission to appeal.

Until mid-October 2024, Anand had never suggested his difficulties impacted his ability to engage with proceedings. In February 2024, he stated he understood the second defendant was managing matters for him. By late October 2024, rather than citing personal circumstances, he was alleging a breakdown with counsel.

At the third stage, the court considered all circumstances, including the need for efficient litigation and compliance with orders. The delay was enormous and proceedings had reached conclusion. Granting relief would revert matters to pre-case management conference stage.

Despite instructing solicitors in October 2024, Anand made no attempt to pay any sum to the claimant or into court pursuant to Master McCloud's order. He only satisfied the costs order the day before the hearing, approximately nineteen months late. The relief application itself was not issued until over a month after instructing solicitors.

The Deputy Master observed that Anand had established a pattern of last-minute preparation, late adjournment requests, non-compliance and repeated changes of representation. The court had little confidence that, were relief granted, Anand would comply going forward.

Whilst acknowledging Anand appeared to have a triable defence, this was insufficient given his repeated and serious breaches and the absence of good reason for those defaults.

Copyright & permissions