Ahmad v Wood & Anor [2018] EWHC 996 (QB) (11 May 2018)

Ahmad v Wood & Anor [2018] EWHC 996 (QB) (11 May 2018)

Paragraphs 33(i) and (ii) of the Particulars of Claim are struck out as an abuse of process because they amount to a collateral attack on District Judge Khan's decision. The damages claim as formulated is not legally tenable as it seeks losses outside the scope of the Defendants' duty. However, the claim based on the failure to put fuller material before the District Judge is not an abuse of process and has a real prospect of success if properly reformulated to claim loss of chance damages.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 996
Parties
Claimant: Riaz Ahmad; First Defendant: Clive Graham Wood; Second Defendant: Clive G Wood & Co (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in part and refused in part
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Loss of Chance, Measure of Damages, Striking Out Pleadings, Summary Judgment
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Loss of Chance Measure of Damages Striking Out Pleadings Summary Judgment

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 10
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Riaz Ahmad

Claimant

Clive Graham Wood

First Defendant

Clive G Wood & Co (A Firm)

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether parts of the claim constitute an abuse of process as a collateral attack on a previous court decision
  2. 2 Whether the claim for damages is properly formulated in law
  3. 3 Whether the claim discloses a real prospect of success against both defendants

Ratio Decidendi

Paragraphs 33(i) and (ii) of the Particulars of Claim are struck out as an abuse of process because they amount to a collateral attack on District Judge Khan's decision. The damages claim as formulated is not legally tenable as it seeks losses outside the scope of the Defendants' duty. However, the claim based on the failure to put fuller material before the District Judge is not an abuse of process and has a real prospect of success if properly reformulated to claim loss of chance damages.

Court Disposition

Application granted in part and refused in part

Orders

  • Paragraphs 33(i) and (ii) of the Particulars of Claim struck out as an abuse of process.
  • Damages claim as currently formulated to be struck out unless amended within a set period to plead loss of chance.