Binns v Firstplus Financial Group Plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB) (24 July 2013)

Binns v Firstplus Financial Group Plc [2013] EWHC 2436 (QB) (24 July 2013)

Where a claimant has already achieved full redress for their substantive claim through an effective ADR scheme, and the only remaining advantage of litigation is the possibility of recovering costs, the court should strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process. Costs are adjunctive and not intrinsic to the claim; litigation should not proceed solely for the prospect of costs when substantive redress is available via ADR.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2436
Parties
Respondent (claimant): Christopher and Claire Binns; Appellant (defendant): Firstplus Financial Group PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out And/or Grant Summary Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim struck out in its entirety.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling, Strike Out Applications, Summary Judgment, Costs, Consumer Credit Act 1974
Civil Procedure Consumer Protection Financial Services Abuse of Process Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Payment Protection Insurance (ppi) Mis Selling Strike Out Applications Summary Judgment +2 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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christopher and Claire Binns

Respondent (claimant)

Firstplus Financial Group PLC

Appellant (defendant)

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out And/or Grant Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a county court claim should be struck out or summarily dismissed where full redress has been offered under an ADR scheme but not accepted by the claimant
  2. 2 Whether the pursuit of litigation solely for the prospect of costs constitutes a reasonable ground for bringing a claim or an abuse of process

Ratio Decidendi

Where a claimant has already achieved full redress for their substantive claim through an effective ADR scheme, and the only remaining advantage of litigation is the possibility of recovering costs, the court should strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process. Costs are adjunctive and not intrinsic to the claim; litigation should not proceed solely for the prospect of costs when substantive redress is available via ADR.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim struck out in its entirety.

Orders

  • The claim is struck out in its entirety.
  • The ADR offer under the FSA scheme remains open for acceptance.