Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 3206 (QB) (08 December 2017)

Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor [2017] EWHC 3206 (QB) (08 December 2017)

The claimant's conduct in the first action was neither an abuse of process nor inexcusable; there was only a single failure to comply with part of a court order, and as a litigant in person, the claimant attempted to comply. Therefore, the second action is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out.

Citation
[2017] EWHC 3206
Parties
Claimant: Philip Davies; 1st Defendant: Carillion Energy Services Limited; 2nd Defendant: His Energy Limited (In Liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Relitigation, Relief From Sanctions, Litigants in Person, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Contract Law Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Relitigation Relief From Sanctions Litigants in Person Compliance With Court Orders

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Davies

Claimant

Carillion Energy Services Limited

1st Defendant

His Energy Limited (In Liquidation)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second action is an abuse of process following the strike out of the first action for procedural non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct in the first action was inexcusable or amounted to an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the correct legal test is the Securum/Collins approach or the Aldi approach

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's conduct in the first action was neither an abuse of process nor inexcusable; there was only a single failure to comply with part of a court order, and as a litigant in person, the claimant attempted to comply. Therefore, the second action is not an abuse of process and should not be struck out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's appeal is dismissed; the second action is not struck out.