B v B [2005] EWCA Civ 237 (10 March 2005)

B v B [2005] EWCA Civ 237 (10 March 2005)

On the facts, the 2003 proceedings were not abusive because the 1997 proceedings were effectively disposed of by cross-undertakings and the damages claim was a procedural technicality. The claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in issuing new proceedings. Even if the second proceedings were abusive, the stay on the first proceedings should be lifted to ensure the claimant's undetermined claims are justly tried.

Citation
[2005] EWCA Civ 237
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms B; Respondent/defendant: Mr B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Lifting Stay, Limitation Periods, Sexual Abuse Claims, Professional Conduct
Civil Procedure Family Law Personal Injury Abuse of Process Lifting Stay Limitation Periods Sexual Abuse Claims Professional Conduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms B

Appellant/claimant

Mr B

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal (civil Division), Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2003 proceedings were an abuse of process due to existence of 1997 proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the stay on the 1997 proceedings should be lifted
  3. 3 Whether solicitors' conduct amounted to abuse

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, the 2003 proceedings were not abusive because the 1997 proceedings were effectively disposed of by cross-undertakings and the damages claim was a procedural technicality. The claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in issuing new proceedings. Even if the second proceedings were abusive, the stay on the first proceedings should be lifted to ensure the claimant's undetermined claims are justly tried.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Statement of Mr Tarren admitted as evidence
  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of District Judge Bird's order of 10 March 2004 set aside