THE NEED FOR COURT APPROVAL IN A FATAL ACCIDENT CASE INVOLVING CHILDREN: SUBSEQUENT ACTION FOR PERSONAL INJURY IS NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
The judgment of Mr Justice Pepperall in Bayless & Ors v Norfolk and Norwich University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust [2023] EWHC 2986 (KB) provides a warning, to both claimants and defendants, that offers under the Fatal Accidents Act, that involve…
A SECOND ACTION ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE TO THE FIRST SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN STRUCK OUT: COURT OF APPEAL NOT TOO KEEN ON “SHADOW BOXING” IN CIVIL LITIGATION
In Orji & Anor v Nagra & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 1289 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision that an action should be struck out as an abuse of process. The Court rejected the defendant’s contention that the action…
THE JUDGE WAS WRONG TO STRIKE OUT A PROPERLY PLEADED CLAIM IN A PERSONAL INJURY CASE: JUDGE’S SHOULD BE ASTUTE TO DEAL WITH APPLICATIONS TO STRIKE OUT WHICH ARE, IN REALITY, APPLICATIONS FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
The judgment of Mr Justice Choudhury in Kasongo v CRBE Ltd & Anor [2023] EWCA Civ 557 demonstrates the danger when a defendant makes an application to strike out a statement of case. The judge allowed an appeal where a…
CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR PERMISSION TO CONTINUE WITH THIRD SET OF PROCEEDINGS REFUSED: CPR 38.7 CONSIDERED IN DETAIL
In Danielewicz v Cannon & Anor [2023] EWHC 948 (KB) Master Thornett refused the claimant’s application for an order under CPR 38.7. The claimant had issued proceedings twice before, but discontinued those actions. The judgment contains a detailed consideration of…
ANOTHER CLAIM FORM CASE – BUT WITH A DIFFERENCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT BECAUSE CLAIM FORM CONTAINED NO FACTS AT ALL
In Free Leisure Ltd (t/a “Cirque Le Soir”) v Peidl And Company Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 792 (Comm) Charles Hollander KC, sitting as a High Court judge considered the appropriate course when the “facts” section of the claim form…
LITIGANTS SUBJECT TO A CIVIL PROCEEDINGS ORDER CANNOT ISSUE VALID PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT PRIOR ORDER FROM THE COURT: “RETROSPECTIVE PERMISSION” HAD NO EFFECT: ACTION WAS A NULLITY
In Williamson v The Bishop of London & Ors [2023] EWCA Civ 379 the Court of Appeal held that a person subject to a Civil Proceedings Order must obtain permission from the High Court so they could issue valid proceedings. …
COSTS BITES 73: IN A WASTED COSTS APPLICATION THE APPLICANTS FAILED TO GET PAST THE FIRST STAGE
In King & Ors v Stiefel & Ors [2023] EWHC 453 (Comm) Mr Justice Jacobs refused to allow a wasted costs application to pass stage one of the process. The issues were too complex and the costs to high, to…
COST BITES 59: COSTS AGAINST THE CLAIMANT EVEN THOUGH THE DEFENDANTS’ APPLICATION WAS UNSUCCESSFUL: HOWEVER THE JUDGE FELT TOTALLY UNABLE TO RELY ON A COSTS SCHEDULE
Another example of costs not following the event can be seen in the judgment of Mrs Justice Smith in The Financial Conduct Authority v Papadimitrakopoulos & Anor [2022] EWHC 3048 (Ch). The judgment also raises other issues in relation to…
CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION FOR RELIEF FROM SANCTIONS REFUSED – IN CATEGORICAL TERMS
In 889 Trading Ltd v Clydesdale Bank Plc & Ors [2023] EWHC 215 (Ch) HHJ Hodge KC, sitting as a judge of the High Court, refused the claimant’s application for relief. That refusal was in very categorical terms. The claimant…
DELAY BY THE CLAIMANT WAS NOT “WAREHOUSING” AND DID NOT LEAD TO A STRIKE OUT: A PARTY ALLEGING DELAY WAS ABUSE MUST ACT PROMPTLY
There are several significant aspects to the judgment of Mr Justice Eyre in Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Ltd v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Ltd & Anor [2023] EWHC 166 (TCC). Firstly the distinction between proceedings issued for the…
MAKING A MISTAKE ON THE DAMAGES CLAIM PORTAL IS NOT NECESSARILY AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: AN APPLICATION THAT PROVED COSTLY FOR THE DEFENDANT
I am grateful to Express Solicitors for sending me a report of a decision in Oxford County Court relating to the Damages Claim Portal. The claimant had used the Portal to issue against the Crown. The Portal cannot be used…
COURT OF APPEAL DECISION: DEFENDANT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GRANTED PERMISSION TO SET ASIDE NOTICE OF DISCONTINUANCE: DEFENDANT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO STRIKE OUT THE CLAIM
In Excalibur & Keswick Groundworks Ltd v McDonald [2023] EWCA Civ 18 the Court of Appeal rejected the defendant’s appeal, which was an attempt to subvert the principles of Qualified One Way Costs Shifting (“QOCS”). The claimant discontinued the action…
A SECOND APPEAL IN COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS WAS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS, AND DISMISSED FOR THAT REASON
In Nambiar v Solitair Ltd [2022] EWCA Civ 1135 the Court of Appeal held that an appeal against a committal order should be struck out as an abuse of process. Prior to sentencing the appellant had issued an earlier, identical,…
AN APPLICATION FOR COMMITTAL THAT WAS “WHOLLY FRIVOLOUS” AND “BORDERS ON VEXATIOUS”: CLAIMANT NOW REQUIRES PERMISSION TO BRING SIMILAR COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS…
For the second time today I am writing about an injunction case which failed because the claimant had failed to prove compliance with an order for service. However this particular case has more sinister overtones. The claimant attempted to bring…
COURT OF APPEAL OVERTURNS DECISION TO STRIKE OUT “UNMANAGEABLE” COURT PROCEEDINGS
In Municipio De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group (UK) Ltd & Anor [2022] EWCA Civ 951 the Court of Appeal overturned a decision to strike out a claim. The Court doubted whether an action could ever be described…
THE RULES ABOUT WITNESS STATEMENTS “SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A WEAPON FOR THE PURPOSE OF BATTERING THE OPPOSITION”: COMMONSENSE MUST BE USED: APPLICANT ORDERED TO PAY 75% OF THE RESPONDENTS’ COSTS ON THE INDEMNITY BASIS
In Curtiss & Ors v Zurich Insurance Plc & Anor (Costs) [2022] EWHC 1514 (TCC) HHJ Keyser QC (sitting as a Judge of the High Court) ordered the applicant to pay 75% the respondents’ costs on the indemnity basis. The…
STRIKING OUT PART OF A WITNESS STATEMENTS: SOME PART OF THESE HAVE TO GO: HIGH COURT DECISION
The judgment of Mrs Justice Steyn in Vardy -v- Rooney & News Group Newspapers Ltd [2022] EWHC 946 (QB) also contains a consideration of an application to strike out part of the witness statement. There is a review of the…
PLEADING A DEFENCE: THE DIFFICULT STATUS OF A “NON-ADMISSION”: (SOMETHING ABOUT RE-USING WITNESS STATEMENTS TOO)
In Cardiff City Football Club (Holdings) Ltd, Re [2022] EWHC 322 (Ch) Mr Justice Adam Johnson found himself deciding matters relating to the pleading of the action, the scope of the trial and the admissibility of witness evidence on the…
CASE STRUCK OUT DUE TO CLAIMANT’S INACTIVITY: YOU CAN’T “WAREHOUSE” A COURT ACTION
In Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm) HHJ Pearce (sitting as a High Court judge) struck out an action on the grounds of the claimant’s delay. The case had been “warehoused” and the claimant had not adduced…
COURT REFUSES CLAIMANT’S APPLICATION TO AMEND ITS OWN APPLICATION: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A PROSPECTIVE AND RETROSPECTIVE APPLICATION
There are few judgments in relation to the amendment of applications. This issue was considered by Deputy Master Francis in Cavadore Ltd & Anor v Jawa & Anor [2021] EWHC 3382 (Ch). The claimant’s application to amend its application was…