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 the previous court's findings; the damages claim as formulated is not legally tenable as it seeks losses outside the scope of the Defendants' duty, but the Claimant is given an opportunity to amend; the remaining claim, based on the loss of a chance due to absence of material before the District Judge, has a real prospect of success and is not struck out or summarily dismissed.

Citation
[2018] EWHC 996 (QB)
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 / Application for Strike Out And/or Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application to strike out and for summary judgment granted in part and refused in part.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Collateral Attack, Loss of Chance, Measure of Damages, Pleading Requirements, Summary Judgment
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Collateral Attack Loss of Chance Measure of Damages Pleading Requirements 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 4 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
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 / 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 the previous court's findings; the damages claim as formulated is not legally tenable as it seeks losses outside the scope of the Defendants' duty, but the Claimant is given an opportunity to amend; the remaining claim, based on the loss of a chance due to absence of material before the District Judge, has a real prospect of success and is not struck out or summarily dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out and for summary judgment granted in part and refused in part.

Orders

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