Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm) (14 January 2022)

Alfozan v Quastel Midgen LLP [2022] EWHC 66 (Comm) (14 January 2022)

The Claimant issued and maintained the claim without a genuine intention to pursue it, demonstrated by prolonged inactivity, failure to comply with procedural rules, and only acting when threatened with strike out. The conduct amounted to warehousing and an abuse of process. The provision of security for costs and belated steps did not outweigh the history of inaction. Striking out was a proportionate sanction given the continued inadequacy of the pleadings and lack of confidence that lesser orders would ensure proper prosecution of the claim.

Citation
[2022] EWHC 66 (Comm)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Ali Fozan Alfozan; First Defendant: Mr Husamaldean Alrasheed; Second Defendant: Quastel Midgen LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 January 2022
Procedural Posture
Commercial Court Claim (qbd) / Application by Second Defendant to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Claim against the Second Defendant struck out as an abuse of process.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Warehousing of Claims, Pre Action Protocol Compliance, Case Management, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Warehousing of Claims Pre Action Protocol Compliance Case Management Security for Costs

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

Parties

Mr Ali Fozan Alfozan

Claimant

Mr Husamaldean Alrasheed

First Defendant

Quastel Midgen LLP

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Court Claim (qbd) / Application by Second Defendant to Strike Out Claim as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Second Defendant should be struck out as an abuse of process due to warehousing and/or procedural breaches
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of the Claimant demonstrates a lack of genuine intention to pursue the claim
  3. 3 Whether striking out is a proportionate sanction

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimant issued and maintained the claim without a genuine intention to pursue it, demonstrated by prolonged inactivity, failure to comply with procedural rules, and only acting when threatened with strike out. The conduct amounted to warehousing and an abuse of process. The provision of security for costs and belated steps did not outweigh the history of inaction. Striking out was a proportionate sanction given the continued inadequacy of the pleadings and lack of confidence that lesser orders would ensure proper prosecution of the claim.

Court Disposition

Claim against the Second Defendant struck out as an abuse of process.

Orders

  • Claim against Quastel Midgen LLP struck out.
  • Claimant to pay the Second Defendant's costs (subject to detailed assessment if not agreed).