Craig Lloyd v Richard Hayward & Anor
[2024] EWHC 2033 (Ch)
Western Avenue Properties Limited & Anor v Sadhana Soni & Anor
16 July 2024
[2024] EWHC 2124 (KB)
High Court
A company sued another for breaching confidentiality, and the other company countersued for unpaid fees. Nothing happened for six years. The judge threw out the countersuit because the company had waited too long and hadn't really tried to get their money back. The judge said it was unfair to the first company.
Key Facts
- •Claimants sought to restrain defendants from acting as solicitors for a client due to alleged breach of confidentiality.
- •Defendants counterclaimed for unpaid fees.
- •Claimants obtained an interim injunction in October 2017.
- •Claimants secured costs for the counterclaim in July 2018.
- •No action was taken on either claim or counterclaim for nearly five years.
- •Defendants applied to strike out the claim in June 2023, which was granted by consent in December 2023.
- •Claimants then applied to strike out the counterclaim due to inactivity.
- •The counterclaim was inactive for approximately six years after security for costs was paid.
Legal Principles
Failure to progress a claim expeditiously after an interim injunction may be an abuse of process.
Havering London Borough Council v Persons Unknown [2021] EWHC 2648 (QB)
Delay alone, even if inordinate and inexcusable, may not be an abuse of process, but it might be when combined with other factors.
Wearn v HNH International Holdings Limited [2014] EWHC 3542 (Ch)
A very long period of procedural inactivity often infers a lack of intention to progress the claim, but this can be rebutted with a satisfactory explanation.
Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm)
It is likely an abuse of process for a claimant to unilaterally decide not to pursue a claim for a substantial period.
Asturion Fondation v Alibrahim [2020] EWCA Civ 32
The court frowns upon 'approbating and reprobating' – i.e., criticizing inaction by one party while excusing similar inaction by oneself.
Express Newspapers Plc v News (UK) Limited [1990] 1 WLR 1320 (Ch)
Cases should be dealt with justly, proportionately, expeditiously and fairly under the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.
CPR Rule 1.3
Outcomes
Claimants' application to strike out the counterclaim was granted.
The defendants' delay in progressing the counterclaim amounted to an abuse of process due to inordinate and inexcusable delay and tactical warehousing. The defendants' conduct was inconsistent with the overriding objective of the CPR.
Similar Cases
Morgan Sindall Construction and Infrastructure Limited v Capita Property and Infrastructure (Structures) Limited & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 166 (TCC)
Raj Wadhwani & Anor v Natwest Markets PLC (formerly The Royal Bank of Scotland PLC)
[2024] EWHC 1103 (Ch)
C. CHRISTO & CO LIMITED v NICHOLAS CHRISTOFOROU & Anor.
[2023] EWHC 1094 (KB)
Watford Control Instruments Ltd v Colin Brown
[2024] EWHC 1125 (Ch)