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.