Contrarian Funds Llc v Lomas and others Re Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (in Administration) [2014] EWHC 1687 (Ch), [2014] All ER (D) 65 (Jun)
The right to challenge the rejection of a proof arose under r 2.78 of the Insolvency Rules 1986 (SI 1986/1925). Rule 12.9(2) (replaced by r 12A.55(2) in identical terms in 2010) enabled the court to extend or shorten the time for compliance with anything required to be done by the Rules. In an application for an extension of time, consideration had to be given to the factors listed in CPR 3.9. Although CPR 3.9 required consideration to be given to all the circumstances of the case, the only factors listed were the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and the need to enforce compliance with rules, practice directions and orders. Where the non-compliance was not trivial and there was no good reason for it, the expectation generally would be that relief from sanctions would be refused.
