Michael Earl Wilson v John Forster Emmott
[2023] EWHC 2415 (KB)
Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v JF Emmott & Ors
7 February 2024
[2024] EWCA Civ 86
Court of Appeal
Mr. Wilson's company messed up filing a lawsuit, leading to its dismissal. They tried to appeal, but the appeal was rejected. They then tried to reopen the appeal, but the court said that they had another chance to sue, and it was unfair to use this appeal to retry the same case.
Key Facts
- •Pathological litigation between solicitors Mr. Wilson and Mr. Emmott.
- •MWP (Mr. Wilson's company) applied to reopen an appeal refused by Males LJ.
- •The appeal concerned the strike-out of MWP's second 804 claim form due to procedural irregularities (incorrect claim number and fee).
- •MWP subsequently issued a fresh claim (532 claim), which was struck out.
- •MWP argued Males LJ didn't consider their supplementary skeleton argument.
- •MWP proposed new claims (2nd Addendum claim and costs recovery claim) if the appeal were reopened.
Legal Principles
Test for reopening a final determination under CPR 52.30: necessity to avoid real injustice, exceptional circumstances, no effective alternative remedy.
CPR 52.30; Municipio de Mariana and others v BHP Group Plc and another [2021] EWCA Civ 1156
A judge's failure to consider relevant papers may justify reopening, but only if it critically undermines the litigation process and likely altered the decision.
de Mariana at [68]
Rule in Henderson v Henderson (1841) 3 Hare 100: a litigant should bring forward all claims in the same proceedings.
Henderson v Henderson (1841) 3 Hare 100
Issue estoppel: If the substance of a claim has been finally determined in fresh proceedings, reopening earlier proceedings is unjust.
Sections 21, 59
Outcomes
Application to reopen the appeal dismissed.
The appeal was without merit; MWP's actions contributed significantly to the procedural errors; the 532 claim provided an effective alternative remedy; proposed new claims were either already determined or could be brought in fresh proceedings.