Tag Archives: Striking out

COURT FEES AND STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER CASE

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 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 […]

DELAY AND NON-COMPLIANCE: ACTION STRUCK OUT: A “GAME CHANGER”

The judgment of Master Matthew in Phelps -v- Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) emphasises the dangers of delay and non compliance. “…I will observe that the Court ethos has changed enormously since the days of Lord Denning and the two Court of Appeal decisions to which I have referred. I will not say that in […]

PAYING THE CORRECT COURT FEE, AMENDMENT & STRIKING OUT: ANOTHER DECISION

There have been a number of cases in relation to the consequences for a claimant when the correct court fee has not been paid upon issue.  This issue was considered by His Honour Judge Robinson this week in an appeal in the case of Wiseman -v- Marston’s PLC (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2016). (This […]

THE DEAD CAN’T SUE: AN IMPORTANT REMINDER

In Kimathi & Ors -v- The Foreign & Commonwealth Office [2016] EWHC 3005 (QB) Mr Justice Stewart reviewed the principles in relation to bringing an action on behalf of a deceased party.  It is an important reminder of some very basic principles. An action is brought by the deceased’s estate not in the name of the […]

PROVING THINGS 32: DAMAGES CLAIM STRUCK OUT AS UNSUSTAINABLE; APPLICATION TO AMEND REFUSED.

In Guney -v- Kingsley Napley [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB) Mrs Justice McGowan struck out part of the claimant’s claim for damages and refused the claimant permission to amend to plead new heads of damage. It could serve as an object lesson in the risks involved in claiming damages that are not recoverable in law and […]

TWO PROCEDURAL POINTS: A SECOND ACTION IS NOT ALWAYS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS & A BANKRUPT CANNOT BRING PROCEEDINGS

The judgment of Master Bowles in Khan -v- Khan & Ambala Foods Limited [2015] EWHC 2625 (Ch) contains a reminder of two important procedural points. KEY POINTS (1) The issue of a second set of proceedings is potentially an abuse of proceedings. However the court will not always find it to be an abuse. (2) […]

YOU ARE PAYING YOUR WITNESSES BY RESULTS: WE WANT TO STRIKE YOU OUT

The judgment of Mr Justice Fraser in EnergySolutions EU Limited -v- Nuclear Decommissioning Authority [2016] EWHC 1988 (TCC) is a highly technical analysis of procurement legislation in an action that had already had a somewhat tortuous procedural history.  However I want to look at one part of the judgment that dealt with the fact that […]

“SECOND” ACTION FOR CLINICAL NEGLIGENCE NOT STRUCK OUT AS AN ABUSE OF PROCESS

In the judgment today in Wright -v- Barts Health NHS Trust [2016] EWHC 1834 (QB) Mr Justice Edis refused the defendant’s application to strike out the claim or for summary judgment on the grounds that the claimant had settled an earlier claim for damages. the defendant Trust was liable to pay different elements of the claim […]

PAYING THE “CORRECT” COURT FEE AND AMENDMENT: AN IMPORTANT CASE REVIEWING THE PRINCIPLES

This blog has looked several times* at the cases and principles that have followed the decision in Lewis -v- Ward Hadaway [2015] EWHC 3503 (Ch).   Applications around allegations of failure to pay the correct court fee have  become a new battleground between claimants and defendants, with defendants constantly seeking  to strike out and arguing abuse of […]

IF YOU ARE GOING TO DRAFT PLEADINGS THEN DO IT PROPERLY: A REPLY AND DEFENCE TO COUNTERCLAIM IS NOT A MERE FORMALITY

A post last month highlighted a case where a defendant obtained judgment in default on a counterclaim. The judge refused to set aside the judgment and, in effect, the claimant’s entire claim failed. There is a clear and obvious need for a Defence to Counterclaim to be lodged. However a failure to do this properly […]