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 is dismissed because the claimants, or their legal advisers, failed to address the defendant's pleaded case on standing 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's decision to strike out the claim as an abuse of process was correct.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 91
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, Striking Out Applications, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Res Judicata Commercial Agents Striking Out Applications Article 6 ECHR

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 proceed after failing to address standing in earlier proceedings
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 ECHR entitles claimants to a trial on the merits despite procedural bars

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the claimants, or their legal advisers, failed to address the defendant's pleaded case on standing 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's decision to strike out the claim as an abuse of process was correct.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

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