Western Avenue Properties Limited & Anor v Sadhana Soni & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2124 (KB)
Raj Wadhwani & Anor v Natwest Markets PLC (formerly The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC)
5 April 2024
[2024] EWHC 1103 (Ch)
High Court
A dentist sued a bank over a bad investment. He took eight years to provide necessary paperwork. The judge said he waited too long, and threw out the case. Even though the dentist had good reasons for some of the delays (like the pandemic and a heavy workload), the judge said he should have prioritized the lawsuit and the delays were his fault.
Key Facts
- •Claimants (Raj and Rita Wadhwani) brought a claim against NatWest Markets PLC (formerly Royal Bank of Scotland PLC) concerning a 2008 interest rate swap.
- •The claim was issued in June 2015, with a consent order extending the time for filing a defence.
- •The Claimants experienced significant delays in providing a schedule of loss, spanning over eight years.
- •The delays were attributed to various factors, including the Claimants' heavy workload, difficulties finding and retaining key personnel (including accountants), pursuit of additional, ultimately abandoned, heads of claim, and the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic.
- •The Defendant applied to strike out the claim due to the excessive delay.
- •The Claimants applied to lift an automatic stay (pursuant to CPR 15.11) and for relief from sanctions.
Legal Principles
Automatic stay under CPR 15.11
CPR 15.11
Relief from sanctions under the Denton test
Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906 (implicitly referenced)
Striking out a claim under CPR 3.4(2)(c) for breach of a rule (CPR 1.3)
CPR 3.4(2)(c), CPR 1.3
Striking out a claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b) for abuse of process (warehousing)
CPR 3.4(2)(b), Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim [2020] EWCA Civ 32, Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor [2023] EWHC 166 (TCC), Alfozan v Quastel Midgen [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm)
Overriding objective of the CPR
CPR 1.1, CPR 1.3
Outcomes
The automatic stay under CPR 15.11 was not considered applicable.
The consent order extending time for the defence superseded the standard procedural timeframe in CPR 15.4.
Claimants' application for relief from sanctions was refused.
The court found the delays were largely within the Claimants' control and not justified by the reasons provided. The delays were deemed serious and significant, and the Claimants' conduct was not in accordance with the overriding objective of the CPR.
The claim was struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b) for abuse of process (warehousing).
The court found the Claimants' conduct amounted to warehousing due to the lengthy, unexplained delays and lack of good reason for the inaction. The court considered it disproportionate to grant relief from sanction or make unless orders given the extreme delay and lack of preparedness (including the need to amend the claim form).
Similar Cases
Craig Lloyd v Richard Hayward & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch)
Knaresborough Investments Limited v Styles & Wood Group Limited (in liquidation) & Ors
[2024] EWHC 1356 (Comm)
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
Michael Wilson & Partners, Ltd v Michael John Short
[2024] EWHC 2113 (Ch)