Christine Bangs v FM Conway Limited
[2024] EWCA Civ 1461
Kamran Attaei v Nahid Alsharif & Ors
21 November 2024
[2024] EWHC 2972 (KB)
High Court
A man's claim for money was thrown out of court because he was sick and in another country. A higher court decided the judge made mistakes: he misunderstood some emails, didn't look properly at the man's medical evidence, and wrongly penalized him for a financial help application. The higher court reversed the decision and sent the case back to be heard properly.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HHJ Saggerson's 11 August 2023 order striking out Appellant's breach of contract claim.
- •Appellant (Claimant), 78 years old, claimed £32,305 for refurbishment work done years prior.
- •Appellant did not attend the pre-trial review (PTR) due to illness and being in Bahrain for medical treatment.
- •Judge struck out the claim due to non-attendance, insufficient medical evidence, and an allegedly inadequate application for help with fees (HWF).
- •Appellant's claim was based on a written contract and oral agreements; Respondents disputed the agreements and claimed full payment was made.
- •Multiple adjournments of the trial occurred due to Appellant's health issues.
- •Appellant's surgery was scheduled twice on the same day as the trial.
- •Appellant submitted medical evidence from UK and Bahrain hospitals, and his GP.
Legal Principles
Court's power to adjourn a hearing is under CPR 3.1(2)(b), considering the overriding objective and factors such as parties' conduct, consequences of delays, and jeopardy to a fair trial (Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd).
CPR 3.1(2)(b), Fitzroy Robinson Ltd v Mentmore Towers Ltd [2009] EWHC 3070 (TCC)
Applications to adjourn on medical grounds require careful scrutiny of medical evidence, identifying medical attendant, condition, prognosis, and ensuring it's an independent opinion (Levy v Ellis-Carr).
Levy v Ellis-Carr [2012] EWHC 63 (Ch)
Court may strike out a statement of claim if it discloses no reasonable grounds, is an abuse of process, or there's a failure to comply with rules (CPR 3.4(2)). Strike out is a draconian sanction.
CPR 3.4(2)
Appeal court allows appeals where the lower court decision was wrong or unjust due to serious procedural irregularity (CPR 52.21(3)). Appellate courts don't lightly interfere with case management decisions.
CPR 52.21(3), Clearway Drainage Systems Ltd v Miles Smith Ltd [2016] EWCA Civ 1258
Outcomes
Appeal allowed; Judge's order quashed.
The Judge erred in characterizing emails from Appellant's associates, wrongly refused adjournment due to insufficient medical evidence, and erred in striking out the claim based on the HWF issue.
Respondents to pay Appellant's costs of the appeal (£709.20 to Appellant and £1750 to Access to Justice Foundation).
Appellant was successful party, despite his non-attendance at earlier hearings; the costs reflect Appellant's costs as a litigant in person and pro bono representation.
Case remitted to County Court for a fresh PTR and trial re-listing.
The Judge's order striking out the claim was overturned, necessitating a fresh start.