Barnett & Ors v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd [2013] EWHC 91 (QB) (29 January 2013)

Barnett & Ors v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd [2013] EWHC 91 (QB) (29 January 2013)

The appeal was dismissed because the claimants or their legal advisers failed to address the defendant's pleaded case regarding locus standi in the earlier proceedings, and no explanation was provided for this omission. It would be unjust to allow the claimants a second opportunity to litigate the same issues, and the Master was entitled to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 91 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Barnett; Claimant/appellant: Jeanette Barnett; Claimant/appellant: David Barnett Associates (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Nigel Hall Menswear Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Commercial Agents Regulations, Article 6 ECHR, Striking Out Applications
Civil Procedure Commercial Law Abuse of Process Res Judicata Commercial Agents Regulations Article 6 ECHR Striking Out Applications

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Barnett

Claimant/appellant

Jeanette Barnett

Claimant/appellant

David Barnett Associates (A Firm)

Claimant/appellant

Nigel Hall Menswear Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present claim is an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson doctrine
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should be permitted to pursue claims not raised in earlier proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 ECHR entitles claimants to a trial on the merits despite procedural bars

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the claimants or their legal advisers failed to address the defendant's pleaded case regarding locus standi in the earlier proceedings, and no explanation was provided for this omission. It would be unjust to allow the claimants a second opportunity to litigate the same issues, and the Master was entitled to strike out the claim as an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out as abuse of process
  • No trial on the merits of the claim