BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (King's Bench Division) Decisions >> Western Avenue Properties Ltd & Anor v SONI & Anor [2024] EWHC 2124 (KB) (16 July 2024) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/KB/2024/2124.html Cite as: [2024] EWHC 2124 (KB) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
KING'S BENCH DIVISION
Strand London |
||
16 July 2024 |
B e f o r e :
____________________
IN THE MATTER OF | ||
WESTERN AVENUE PROPERTIES LIMITED and ANOTHER | Claimants | |
-v- | ||
SADHANA SONI and ANOTHER | Defendants |
____________________
MR S HUNTER, instructed by Denning Sotomayor Limited, appeared on behalf of the Defendants
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
MASTER DAVISON:
"I have just now received Miss Soni's emails. She has not communicated with me or progressed her counterclaim for some six years now." (It went on to say that it was the claimants' intention to apply to strike out the counterclaim.)
"The purpose, or certainly the primary purpose, of the hearing on Monday was the defendants' strike out application which has now been agreed. I will not the use hearing to make directions in the counterclaim which is a separate matter. I would invite the parties to take stock. It will be for Denning Sotomayor, the second defendant, to apply to list the counterclaim for a directions hearing, if so advised. If an application to strike out the counterclaim is also issued, that can be listed at the same time.".
"The counterclaim shall be struck out pursuant to CPR rule 3.4(b) on the grounds that it is an abuse of process or alternatively, the counterclaim shall be dismissed for want of prosecution on the grounds that the defendant has failed to take any steps to progress the counterclaim since August 2018. Further, the defendant shall pay the claimants' costs of the counterclaim.".
"In Wearn v HNH International Holdings Limited [2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch), Barling J, the case was struck out under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b) and rule 3.4(2)(c) for delay and non-compliance with court orders. The claim had been ongoing for almost 14 years and the claimant was largely responsible for the delay. The court recognised that the guiding principle was the delay alone, even if it was inordinate and inexcusable, could not be an abuse of process. However, abuse of process might arise when delay was combined with some other relevant factor.". And then a little further on: "In Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm), HHJ Pearce, sitting as a High Court Judge, ruled that evidence or very long period of procedural inactivity by the claimant often gives rise to an inference that the claimant has no real intention of progressing the claim. However, that inference can be rebutted if there is a satisfactory explanation for the delay.".
"It is clear from what Lord Woolf MR said that it is likely to be an abuse of process for the claimant unilaterally to decide not to pursue a claim for a substantial period of time, even if the claimant remains intent on pursuing the claim at some future point."
"So far as the facts of this case are concerned, the claimants respectfully adopt the language of the defendants' own solicitor, Miss Fitzgerald, at paragraph 26 of her statement.".
"The court retains its inherent power to dismiss a claim for want of prosecution where a case has not been progressed even though there has been no specific breach of any rule or court order. The overring objective of the Civil Procedure Rules is that cases should be dealt with justly and at proportionate cost which includes the requirement that they should be dealt with expeditiously and fairly. In this case there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay. The claimants have entirely failed to progress their claim and it seems had no intention of doing so. I submit that as a result the claimants have failed to comply with their duty under CPR Rule 1.3 to help the court to further the overriding objective. In the circumstances, in the alternative, the claimants invite the court to dismiss the claim for want of prosecution.".
"One has only got to substitute the word 'counterclaim' for 'claim' to show that this is a proper case where the counterclaim should be dismissed for want of prosecution."