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…
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…
HALLOWEEN FOR LAWYERS: SCARY THINGS: RESURRECTING NIGHTMARES FROM THE PAST
Halloween may, and should, be more muted this year. I had planned to write a post on delays in the civil courts, which can be really scary. I will save this from another date. Instead I have resurrected contributions from…
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,…
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…
ACTION STRUCK OUT WHEN CLAIMANT GIVES WRONG ADDRESS ON THE CLAIM FORM
I am grateful to solicitor Hamish Cameron Blackie for sending me a copy of the judgment of HHJ Bloom in Conlon -v- Ringway Infrastructure Services Ltd (County Court at Luton, 2nd December 2021) where the judge struck out an action…
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…
THE DANGEROUS USE OF “PRECEDENTS”: WHEN 28 DIVORCE PETITIONS MAKE IDENTICAL ALLEGATIONS THEN SOMETHING IS NOT QUITE RIGHT..
The judgment of Mr Justice Moor in Yorston & Ors, Re (Matrimonial Causes Act 1973: Improper Petitions) [2021] EWFC 80 makes interesting reading. The judge was considering a referral from a court which found that 28 divorce petitions, based on…
AN EXTRAORDINARY CASE: DRAFT JUDGMENTS ARE SACROSANCT: ALLEGATIONS OF DISCLOSURE, AND OF “JUDGE’S OFFICE” LEAKING LIKE A SIEVE WERE TOTALLY MISFOUNDED
The judgment in Optis Cellular Technology Inc & Anor v Apple Retail UK Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2694 (Pat) is one of the most extraordinary I have read. It concerns the important principle that draft judgments sent out by…
DELAY IN PURSUING PROCEEDINGS IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: LOCAL AUTHORITY’S INSOUCIENCE A CAUSE FOR CONCERN
In London Borough of Havering & Ors v Persons Unknown & Ors [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB) Mr Justice Nicklin had some clear warnings to give in relation to cases where local authorities had failed to pursue cases promptly after obtaining…
CLAIMANT NOT ALLOWED TO PURSUE POINTLESS COMMITTAL PROCEEDINGS: “THE DISPROPORTIONATE PURSUIT OF POINTLESS LITIGATION IS AN ABUSE”
In Pharmagona Ltd v Taheri & Anor [2021] EWHC 2537 (Ch) Mr Justice Snowden refused an application by a claimant to issue an application for committal. A breach, if established, would be of the most technical kind. Further the defendants…
PERSONAL INJURY ACTION BROUGHT AFTER EMPLOYMENT TRIBUNAL SETTLEMENT NOT AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: THE DEFENDANT HAS GOT WHAT IT SIGNED UP TO…
In Farnham-Oliver v RM Educational Resources Ltd [2021] EWHC 2418 (QB) Master Dagnall rejected an argument that personal injury proceedings, brought after employment proceedings had been settled, were an abuse of process. The settlement agreement had specifically stated that it…
WHEN YOU HAVE TWO IDENTICAL ACTIONS ON THE GO AT ONCE: COURT CONSIDERS THIS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS
In Dixon v Santander Asset Finance Plc & Anor [2021] EWHC 1044 (Ch) HHJ Saffman (sitting as a High Court Judge) granted the defendant summary judgment on the basis that the claim against it was clearly statute barred. The judge…
LYING IN A WITNESS STATEMENTS PASSES THE CUSTODY THRESHOLD: WHEN A PARTY ASSERTED THEY DID NOT KNOW A WITNESS
In Axa Insurance UK Plc v Reid (Rev 1) [2021] EWHC 993 (QB) Mrs Justice Eady found that telling lies in a witness statement in a personal injury case passed the custody threshold. A claimant in a personal injury, who…
WHEN JUDGE READS A DRAFT STATEMENT AND A FINAL STATEMENT (& THERE ARE SOME IMPORTANT DIFFERENCES): LITIGANT REFUSED PERMISSION TO RELY ON EVIDENCE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE THE COURT AT THE ORIGINAL HEARING
The judgment of Mr Justice Francis in Brack v Brack [2020] EWHC 2142 (Fam) is an example of a case where the judge has the opportunity to see a draft statement and a final statement. The judge struck out an…
THE TORT OF “BRINGING PROCEEDINGS FOR AN IMPROPER PURPOSE”: MAY STILL BE ALIVE, BUT NOT VERY WELL…
The judgment of Andrew Lenon QC in Kings Security Systems Ltd v King & Anor [2021] EWHC 325 (Ch) contains a detailed consideration of the tort of “bringing proceedings for an improper purpose”. This tort (may well) still exist, however…
USING PART 8 PROCEEDINGS INSTEAD OF APPEALING IS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: A TAXING ISSUE OF SOME INTEREST
In Revenue And Customs v MCX Dunlin (UK) Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 186 the Court of Appeal held that the use of Part 8 proceedings, rather than a statutory route of appeal was an abuse of process. “… it seems…
THE CORRECT COURT FEE WHEN ADDITIONAL PARTIES ARE JOINED INTO AN ACTION: NOT £55 BUT £10,000 (OH, AND YOU CAN’T RELY ON WHAT THE COURT TOLD YOU…)
There are not many cases where a judge is asked to determine what the appropriate court fee should be. However this is precisely what occurred in the judgment of HHJ Pearce in Walayat & Ors v Berkeley Solicitors Ltd [2021]…
STRIKING OUT A MULTI-PARTY CASE AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS: WHEN CASE MANAGEMENT IS “AKIN TO TRYING TO BUILD A HOUSE OF CARDS IN A WIND TUNNEL”
Returning to the substantive issue in the judgment of Turner J in Município De Mariana & Ors v BHP Group Plc & Anor [2020] EWHC 2930 (TCC). The judge struck out the claims of 202,600 claimants on the grounds that…