Geoffrey Hobson v West London Law Solicitors
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Judge Collender |
| Judgment Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] EWHC 4425 (QB) |
| Docket Number | Case No: TLQ/12/1105 |
| Date | 20 December 2013 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division |
[2013] EWHC 4425 (QB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand
London
WC2A 2LL
His Honour Judge Collender QC
Case No: TLQ/12/1105
The CLAIMANT appeared before the Court in person
MISS HELEN EVANS (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer) appeared on behalf of the Defendant
Approved Judgment
As a preliminary, I note that earlier today when the Claimant arrived at court he gave a three-paged typed document to the Defendant's counsel, headed up "Statement of truth." That was the first time that the Defendants and their advisors saw the document. I gave the Defendants' advisors an opportunity to consider whether it contained any material which should not be seen by me. I was told by Miss Evans that indeed there was reference to mediation in the document. I gave time so that the parties could agree a redaction to the document.
I have had an opportunity to read the redacted document. It is, in summary, a document in which the Claimant refers to his difficulties in complying with court orders by reason of his ill health. He notes his understanding that further time would be given by the Court and also notes a complaint against the Defendants' solicitors for having mistakenly caused him to think that no issue would be raised by them in respect of his failures to comply with court orders which are now relied upon by the Defendants. In the document, the Claimant apologises for any delays and says that he has learnt his lesson, and assures the court that he would not let it happen again.
I had prepared my judgment for delivery today, before I had seen that document. I have read the Claimant's new document with care. The material in the document is not material which is different in kind or otherwise substantially different to that which has already been placed before me by the Claimant. It does not prevent me from giving judgment today or cause me to change any part of that judgment.
This is a professional negligence action against solicitors, issued in July 2011. Before the Court for determination are a number of applications in respect of the future progress of this case. I will deal with the Defendants' application dated 14 November 2013, to strike out the claim and then, as necessary, with the Defendant's application dated 1 October 2013 for unless orders against the Claimant and the Claimant's application dated 14 October 2013 to vacate the trial date and for a revised timetable.
I turn to the factual background. My sources of knowledge as to the facts and progress of this case are a witness statement dated 14 November 2013 of Chloë Phillips, a solicitor for the Defendants, documents and orders supplied to me by the parties and from what I have been told by the Claimant, who is at present representing himself, in the course of the hearing. I am indebted to him and Miss Evans, counsel for the Defendants, for their addresses to me and to Miss Evans who has prepared and supplied for the use of the Claimant and of the Court a comprehensive chronology of the case to date and a skeleton argument. Much assisted by Miss Evans chronology, I have myself prepared a chronology setting out what I consider, on the material before me, to be those facts material to these applications, facts that are not, or cannot sensibly be disputed, and which chronology I have caused to be supplied to the parties and which is attached to this judgment as an Appendix. I will recite the most important facts but all the content of that chronology should be taken to be incorporated in this ruling.
This claim arises from the allegedly negligent handling by the Defendants of a claim made by the Claimant against his former solicitors, Nelsons. That firm acted for the Claimant in relation to a property development loan that was entered into for the benefit of the Claimant's company, Beechmanor, in 1989. The Claimant complained that the loan upon which Nelsons had advised was so structured that the property development was not financially viable, so that loss was sustained by the Claimant.
The Claimant issued proceedings against Nelsons in 1995 at the end of the limitation period, seeking damages based on the lost value of the property transaction. A number of firms of solicitors acted for the Claimant before he instructed the Defendants in 2003. By that time, counsel had already advised the Claimant as to the risk of the claim being struck out. Indeed, Nelsons did apply to strike out the claim contending that there had been delay in the prosecution of the claim and relying upon alleged inadequacy of the Claimant's disclosure.
The claim was struck out by Master Ungley in December 2004. It was briefly reinstated by Dobbs J, subject to an unless order on 13 July 2005 to enable the Claimant to complete disclosure and was struck out again, automatically for breach of that unless order on 15 July 2005. The Claimant was subject to some personal criticism by Dobbs J for his handling of the Nelson's claim.
In July 2011 the Claimant issued the present proceedings in which he blames the Defendants for the claim against Nelsons being struck out. The Defendants, by way of their defence served in April 2012 rely upon the conduct of the Claimant's previous solicitors, the lack of adequate legal aid funding and upon the conduct of the Claimant himself in relation to the proceedings. Importantly, they also plead in their Defence that the action is statute barred as the present claim was not issued until 18 July 2011 and the Nelson's claim had been automatically struck out for breach of the unless order more than 6 years previously, on 15 July 2005.
The Claimant was invited by Miss Phillips to indicate what his case on limitation was in the run up to a case management conference, scheduled for hearing on 8 October 2012. He failed to do so. Directions were given on 8 October 2012 ordering that the limitation issue should be tried as a preliminary in a trial window commencing on 23 April 2013. At that case management conference the Claimant made submissions that his ill health required for him a generous timetable for steps he had to take in the litigation and, as a result of that submission, he was given until 18 January 2013 to serve a Reply on the issues of limitation.
The Claimant failed to comply with that and other directions given at the case management hearing on 8 October 2012. Realising that a preliminary issue trial could not take place within the original trial window, the Defendant agreed revised directions with the Claimant which, on 24 June 2013, were incorporated in an agreed order made by Master Kay.
On 5 July 2013, the Claimant served a short Reply. On 26 July 2013, i.e. some six months after the original deadline, the Claimant served a more substantial Reply. These replies raised, for the first time, issues as to the deemed date of issue of the claim form and deliberate concealment, referring specifically to documents in support of that case.
The deadline for the Claimant giving disclosure on the issue of limitation was 19 July 2013, a deadline not observed by the Claimant. The Defendants sought disclosure of the documents on which the Claimant relied in his reply. However, the Claimant failed to provide either specific or standard disclosure, in consequence of which the Defendants made application on 1 October 2013, for unless orders, which application was countered by the application from the Claimant, dated 14 October 2013, to adjourn the trial of the preliminary issue, by then due to start in a trial window beginning on 19 December 2013.
In support of that application the Claimant revealed for the first time, that he had prepared a substantial document in respect of his reply to the Defendants' limitation defence for the case management conference held on 8 October 2012, in which he set out much of the substance of his current limitation defence.
I turn to consider the applicable law. The Defendant applies to strike out the claim, such application being based on the proposition that the Claimant has failed to comply with the obligations in respect of the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules and with the Court's orders of 8 October 2012 and 24 June 2013 and the Civil Procedure Rules, Practice Direction 7A.
Before setting out the arguments and my conclusions, I will set out the current legal principles governing the application. As a preliminary, relevant to this application I would note the provisions of Civil Procedure Rule 7APD 5.4:
"Parties proposing to start a claim which is approaching the expiry of the limitation period should recognise the potential importance of establishing the date the claim form was received by the court and should themselves make arrangements to record the date."
On 1 April 2013, amendments to the Civil Procedure Rules came into effect. Those amendments have come to be known as the Jackson Reforms. Amendments were made to the overriding objective so as to add in Rules 1.11 and 2, after the word " justly" the words " and at proportionate cost" and to add a new Rule 1.12F:
" (f) enforcing compliance with rules, practice directions and orders"
so that the overriding objective now requires the Court to:
" Deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost. Dealing with a case justly and at proportionate cost includes, so far as is practicable -
(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;
(b) saving expense;
(c) dealing with the case in ways which are...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
1. ReachLocal UK Ltd and Another v 1. Jamie Bennett and Others
...some extent a greater latitude will be given to them to reflect their unfamiliarity with court processes. Mr Singla relied on Hobson v West London Law Solicitors [2013] EWHC 4425 (QB) to support his proposition that the firmer approach to compliance with rules and directions applies even to......