Perkins & Anor v Devoran Joinery Company Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 582 (QB) (22 March 2006)

Perkins & Anor v Devoran Joinery Company Ltd & Ors [2006] EWHC 582 (QB) (22 March 2006)

The proceedings do not represent an abuse of process because the claims for deceit and defective design had not previously been adjudicated, and the claimants are entitled to have these serious allegations publicly aired. The Recorder erred in striking out the claim, failing to consider all relevant circumstances and the right of access to justice.

Citation
[2006] EWHC 582 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Alan Perkins; Appellant/claimant: Pauline Perkins; Respondent/defendant: Devoran Joinery Company Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Kirby and Cove Ltd; Respondent/defendant: Kirby Adair Partnership Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 March 2006
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim for Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Right of Access to Court, Deceit, Defective Design, Remedies for Breach of Contract
Civil Procedure Contract Law Tort Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Right of Access to Court Deceit Defective Design +1 more

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alan Perkins

Appellant/claimant

Pauline Perkins

Appellant/claimant

Devoran Joinery Company Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Kirby and Cove Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Kirby Adair Partnership Ltd

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim for Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against Devoran Joinery Company Ltd for deceit and defective design was an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in striking out the claim as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the claimants were precluded from litigating issues not previously adjudicated upon

Ratio Decidendi

The proceedings do not represent an abuse of process because the claims for deceit and defective design had not previously been adjudicated, and the claimants are entitled to have these serious allegations publicly aired. The Recorder erred in striking out the claim, failing to consider all relevant circumstances and the right of access to justice.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of Recorder dated 28 September 2005 striking out the claim set aside
  • Claim to proceed to trial