There is a brief report on  Browne Jacobson Insurance Law about a case that struck out because of a failure to pay the correct fees.


The report is brief and does not give the date of the judgment or level of judge. The facts

  • The claimant, prior to issue, put forward several schedules which exceeded £50,000.
  • Upon issue the claim form was limited to £50,000 and the claimant limited the value of the claim to that level.
  • The defendant argued that the case had not been issued.
  • The report states  that as wheels of justice had not been set in motion “the court was minded to both strike out and/or give summary judgment of the company, leaving the claimant empty handed and/or facing a costs order.”


It is difficult to comment on the basis of such a short report and with no indication of the level of judge or date of the judgment.  However it is interesting to note that this judgment is contrary to most of the cases on the subject last year. In particular

  • The decision of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Dixon -v- Radley House Partnership [2016] EWHC 2411 (TCC). (Appropriate fee is determined by reference to the figure stated on the claim form).
    • Mr Roger ter Haar QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Glenluce Fishing Company Limited -v- Watermota Limited[2016] EWHC 1807 (TCC).  (Amendment of statement of value considered by using “traditional” principles in relation to amendment).
    •  His Honour Judge Goldsmark QC in Wells -v- Wood & Nottinghamshire Council (Lincoln County Court 09/12/2016) (Claim for issued for limitation purposes, regardless of incorrect fee being paid) [A copy of that judgment is available here  b78ym721-wells-v-wood-notts-cc-judgment-final and is also available on Lawtel.