Key Facts
- •Claimant sought extension of time to serve particulars of claim.
- •Claim form served on 26 May 2023; particulars of claim due 6/7 July 2023.
- •First Defendant applied to strike out claim for late service; granted by Bright J.
- •Claimant alleges property damage caused by First Defendant's resurfacing work.
- •First Defendant's loss adjuster initially admitted liability, then withdrew it.
- •Claimant's solicitor cites bereavement as reason for delay.
- •Second Defendant also applied to strike out the claim.
Legal Principles
Relief from sanctions under CPR 3.9.
Denton v T H White [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Three-stage test for relief from sanctions: seriousness of breach, reason for breach, all circumstances of the case.
Denton v T H White [2014] EWCA Civ 906
Merits of the claim are relevant only if very strong or very weak, without much investigation.
R (on the application of Hysaj) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2014] EWCA Civ 1633
Withdrawal of admission of liability.
CPR Part 14
Striking out is a draconian sanction of last resort.
Summers v Fairclough Homes (cited in Henshaw J's judgment)
Outcomes
Claimant's application for extension of time granted against First Defendant.
Strong case on liability supported by initial admission of liability, lack of factual basis for withdrawal, and potential for abuse of process argument if fresh proceedings are necessary.
Claimant's application for extension of time refused against Second Defendant.
No admission of liability, weaker case against Second Defendant, lack of forethought in bringing claim against Second Defendant.
Second Defendant's application to strike out claim succeeded.
Failure to provide particulars of claim within required timeframe; lack of sufficient justification for the delay.