The recent Judgment in Gumbrell v YPG Pembroke Studios Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 44 (04 February 2026) serves as a reminder that precision is key when it comes to the wording of unless orders. The issue for the Court in this appeal was whether Mrs Gumbrell, a litigant in person, sufficiently complied with an unless order during the course of her claim against YPG Pembroke Studios Ltd (YBG), who were unrepresented at the hearing.

Background

Mrs Gumbrell brought a claim against YPG for non-payment of rental income she alleged was owed to her. This was brought in the County Court in January 2021, by using the Online Money Claim Form. Mrs Gumbrell stated in her particulars that she bought a flat (the property) from the Defendant, and that it was stipulated in the contract that the Seller shall pay the Buyer rental income in the sum of 8% of the Purchase Price per annum for five years from the date of Lease. Mrs Gumbrell was claiming nine overdue payments and interest for the total sum of £12,385.80.

YPG’s defence to the claim was that Mrs Gumbrell did not have an agreement with them, but rather a third party - Perennial Management Ltd.

Preliminary Issue

Before delving into the appeal, the court had to consider a procedural question due to YPG being insolvent. A winding up order was made on 18 June 2025 and the Official Receiver was appointed as its liquidator (with the Official Receiver being neutral in the proceedings against YPG). Given this, s. 130(2) of the Insolvency Act 1986 applied:

"When a winding-up order has been made or a provisional liquidator has been appointed, no action or proceeding shall be proceeded with or commenced against the company or its property, except by leave of the court and subject to such terms as the court may impose."

The test for whether such leave should be given has been set out by various case law:

• Firstly, it must be right and fair according to the circumstances of the case.
• Secondly, a creditor should not be able to priority and undermine the pari passu basis of distribution.
• Thirdly, leave should generally be refused if the issues can conveniently be decided in the liquidation.

In this instance, it was decided hearing the appeal would not give Mrs Gumbrell any priority in liquidation. Additionally, the issue at hand was not one that could be decided in liquidation. Therefore, the appeal could proceed.

The Pivotal Unless Order

The case was transferred to the County Court at Reading where, on 13 May 2022, DJ Sophie Harrison made the order that was the subject of arguments for this appeal. The order stated:

1. The Claimant must file and serve particulars of claim complying with CPR 16 by 4:00pm on 10th June 2022and in particular attaching a copy of the contract and identifying with reference to the contract the sums due and not paid.
2. In default, claim struck-out.
3. On receipt, file to be re-referred for directions."

Mrs Gumbrell, to comply with DJ Harrison’s order, sent to the court a number of documents including evidence of the purchase of the property, the Sale and Purchase Contract for the Property, and, importantly, a one-page sheet ("the one-page sheet") prepared by Mrs Gumbrell explaining the sums due. Mrs Gumbrell stated that these contained the required information to supplement what was already in her Claim Form.

Subsequent to this, DJ Harrison made a further order dated 13 June 2022 allocating the matter to the Fast Track and giving directions for trial, with the usual final paragraph directing that parties may apply to have the order set aside, varied or stayed within seven days of service of the order as the order was made without a hearing. As far as Mrs Gumbrell would have been aware, given her case had not been struck-out, she had complied with DJ Harrison’s unless order.

Settlement Achieved and Case Over?

The trial date was set to be heard at the County Court at Reading on 15 December 2022. As this date drew closer YPG decided to instruct solicitors, with a ‘Partner’ of this firm making the first settlement offer of £500. This was rejected.

From offering to settle for £500 to a change in the claimed sum; on 19 November 2022 Mrs Grumbell sent a case summary to the Partner now claiming that the contract was deceptive and fraudulent. She wanted permission to amend her claim to void the sale and purchase contract and claim damages in tort, upping her claim to £94,466.60 inclusive of interest. This was in addition to stating that she would transfer ownership of the property to the Defendant.

Two days before the trial, the second offer for settlement was made by the Partner, this time for £79,322.17 plus a term that "Upon receipt of payment the leasehold title to Apartment 403, Pembroke Studios will be transferred to our client."

However, before Mrs Gumbrell had much chance to consider the proposal, judicial unavailability struck with the case being postponed to 4 May 2023.

Finally in March 2023 the third settlement offer, this being a Part 36 offer of £99,615.60, was accepted by Mrs Gumbrell. Whilst this offer did not contain reference to the transference of the property, in the covering email there was a proposal to enter into a Tomlin Order and Settlement Deed.

Judgment Entered for the Claimant turns to Claim Struck Out.

Although it appeared a resolution had been achieved, on 19 April 2023 DDJ Alderwick made an ordering entering Judgment for the Claimant for the Part 36 offer figure with costs to be assessed if not agreed. This being a result of a letter to the court from Mrs Gumbrell informing of non-payment of the sums by YPG.

YPG, now with different legal representation, promptly applied to set this order aside, arguing that Mrs Gumbrell had failed to serve Particulars of Claim as ordered by DJ Harrison on 13 May 2022.  YPG argued that, as a result, the claim had been struck out on 10 June 2022. DDJ Deborah Davies agreed with YPG, holding on 30^th December 2023 that the documents that Mrs Gumbrell sent to the Court in apparent compliance with the unless order did not amount to Particulars of Claim, and that the Court wanted a specific document setting out with clarity the nature of her case and identifying by reference to the contract the sums due and not paid. Because of this, it followed the claim was struck out by virtue of the unless order, meaning that the Part 36 offer that was made and accepted was not actual capable of acceptance.

The Appeals

Mrs Gumbrell sought to appeal, permission for which was granted by HHJ Murch. The question on the appeal was this:

Was DDJ Davies wrong to conclude that Mrs Gumbrell had not complied with the Order made on 13 May 2022 by DJ Harrison?

HHJ Murch heard the appeal on 5 August 2024. Mrs Gumbrell’s argument was that her original claim form and the one-page sheet combined amounted to the Particulars of Claim the unless order required. HHJ Murch disagreed and dismissed the appeal, stating that the unless order required Mrs Gumbrell to file and serve a freestanding document that sets out the concise statement of facts, and setting out the clauses of the contract upon which reliance was placed. Further, it was pointed out that the one-page sheet did not contain a statement of truth.

Following this, Mrs Gumbrell appealed to the Court of Appeal on the ground that DDJ Davies and HHJ Murch were wrong to find that there had been non-compliance with the Order of DJ Harrison dated 13 May 2022.

The Decision

The Court of Appeal sided with Mrs Gumbrell, determining that she had complied with the unless order for the following reasons and findings:

• When reading the one-page sheet together with the Claim Form, they do provide "a concise statement of the facts on which the claimant relies" in compliance with CPR 16.
• The unless order did not specify what Mrs Gumbrell needed to do "in the clearest and most precise language" so as to leave her "in no doubt whatsoever as to the steps" she was to take (applying what Greene LJ said in Abalian v Innous[1936] 2 All ER 834 at 838).
• It was not specified clearly on the unless order that Mrs Gumbrell needed to file and serve a fresh freestanding document.
• DJ Harrison herself had given directions for trial on receipt of Mrs Gumbrell’s documents, meaning acceptance from the Judge that Mrs Gumbrell had complied with the unless order.
• YPG did not use the opportunity provided for in the directions order to raise non-compliance with the unless order.
• Mrs Gumbrell complied with the unless order as she understood it to mean.

The appeal was therefore allowed, and the order of DDJ Davies declaring the claim was struck out was set aside. Written submissions were then to be filed on the point of whether the judgment entered by DDJ Alderwick should be reinstated.

Key Takeaways

• If you are asking the court to make an unless order, it must be as specific as possible.
• Specificity is especially key when the unless order is being made against a litigant in person.
• If a party believes that another party has not complied with an unless order, it is important to raise this as soon as possible.

Andrew Williams