Western Avenue Properties Limited & Anor v Sadhana Soni & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2124 (KB)
Craig Lloyd v Richard Hayward & Anor
5 August 2024
[2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch)
High Court
A business dispute led to a lawsuit with long delays. The other side tried to get the case thrown out for wasting the court's time. The judge said the delay wasn't just the suing party's fault – the court itself hadn't managed the case properly, and the other side had been slow too. Since the suing party had finally started moving things forward, the case wasn't thrown out.
Key Facts
- •Claimant and Defendant 1 are businessmen; Defendant 2 is a Jersey company.
- •Dispute concerns a terminated joint venture for developing a business park.
- •Claimant initiated pre-action disclosure proceedings in 2018, which were later set aside.
- •Claimant issued claim form in April 2020, alleging partnership or breach of contract.
- •Proceedings were significantly delayed, with substantial inactivity between May 2021 and December 2023.
- •Defendants applied to strike out the claim as an abuse of process due to the delay.
- •The court considered whether the claimant's inaction indicated a lack of intention to proceed to trial.
Legal Principles
To commence and continue litigation with no intention of bringing it to a conclusion can amount to an abuse of process.
Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 WLR 640
Mere delay, even for fresh investigations, is not abuse of process; abuse consists of lacking intention to proceed to trial or even for settlement.
Board of Governors of the National Heart and Chest Hospital v Chettle (1998) 30 HLR 618
Unilaterally 'warehousing' a claim for a substantial period can be abuse of process, even if the claimant later intends to pursue it.
Solland International Ltd v Clifford Harris & Co [2015] EWHC 3295 (Ch)
The court must consider proportionality of sanctions, and alternatives to striking out, when dealing with delay.
Asiansky Television plc v Bayer-Rosin [2001] EWCA Civ 1792
A claimant's unilateral decision to pause proceedings for a substantial time may be abuse, depending on the reason and the length of the delay.
Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim [2020] EWCA Civ 32
Pre-action delay is relevant to inferring claimant's intentions regarding post-commencement delay.
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited [2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
CPR 3.4(2)(b) allows striking out a statement of case if it's an abuse of process.
Civil Procedure Rules 1998
The court should approach the matter by reference to the approach in Asiansky, Alfozan and Morgan Sindall and exercise the discretion in accordance with the overriding objective and make such order as is just and proportionate on the facts of the particular case.
Judge Keyser KC's judgment
Outcomes
Defendants' application to strike out the claim was refused.
The court found that the claimant's conduct did not amount to an abuse of process, considering the court's own failures in case management, the defendants' inaction, and the lack of demonstrable prejudice.
Similar Cases
Watford Control Instruments Ltd v Colin Brown
[2024] EWHC 1125 (Ch)
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Raj Wadhwani & Anor v Natwest Markets PLC (formerly The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC)
[2024] EWHC 1103 (Ch)