Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 1461
Dermot Joseph Doyle v HDI Global Speciality SE
31 October 2023
[2023] EWHC 2722 (KB)
High Court
Two people sued an insurance company for bad home repairs. Their expert witness quit because their lawyers didn't pay him. The judges said it was the lawyers' fault, not the homeowners', but the delays meant the cases were dismissed. The appeals court agreed with the judges' decisions.
Key Facts
- •Conjoined appeals by Mr Doyle and Mrs Rowe against case management decisions in claims against HDI Global Specialty SE.
- •Claims arose from alleged defective cavity wall insulation installation by Heatwave Energy Solutions Ltd (in liquidation).
- •Both claimants relied on expert evidence, initially from Mr Muir, then replaced by expert ABC.
- •ABC refused to continue acting due to non-payment by claimants' solicitors (SSB Law).
- •ABC sent an email directly to the court outlining the reasons for withdrawal, without copying the claimants' solicitors.
- •Judges Carter and Khan made case management decisions that impacted the ability of claimants to proceed with their cases.
- •The appeals challenged these decisions and focused on procedural fairness and the handling of expert evidence.
Legal Principles
High bar for overturning case management decisions; must be 'plainly wrong'.
Global Torch Limited v Apex Global Management Limited [2014] 1 WLR 4495
Appellate court intervention in discretionary decisions limited to misdirection in law, procedural unfairness, irrelevant/missing factors, or plainly wrong decisions.
Azam v University Hospital Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust [2020] EWHC 3384 (QB)
Relief from sanctions requires consideration of seriousness of breach, reasonable excuse, and justice of the case, including efficient litigation and compliance enforcement.
CPR 3.9
CPR 35.14 deals with experts' right to seek court directions.
CPR 35.14
Outcomes
Doyle appeal dismissed.
No serious procedural irregularity causing injustice; even with additional evidence, the outcome would not have changed. Judge's decision was within the acceptable ambit of discretion.
Rowe appeal dismissed.
Judge Khan appropriately balanced factors, including Rowe's blamelessness and the significant delay and lack of candour by her solicitors. The Judge's decision was a permissible exercise of case management discretion.
Similar Cases
Boidun Jaiyesimi v Sunday Adeyemi Kukoyi
[2024] EWHC 164 (KB)
Anna Christie v Mary Ward Legal Centre & Anor
[2023] EWHC 1814 (KB)
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
Matthew Walker v Mersey Care NHS Foundation
[2024] EWHC 119 (KB)