B v B

B v B

On the facts, the 2003 proceedings were not abusive because the 1997 proceedings were effectively disposed of by undertakings and the claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in believing the original claim was withdrawn. Even if not, the stay on the 1997 proceedings should be lifted to allow the claim to be determined justly. The appeal is allowed and the 2003 proceedings may continue.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Ms B; Respondent/defendant: Mr B
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Bristol County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Stay of Proceedings, Limitation Periods, Sexual Abuse Claims, Case Management
Civil Procedure Family Law Abuse of Process Stay of Proceedings Limitation Periods Sexual Abuse Claims Case Management

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ms B

Appellant/claimant

Mr B

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Second Appeal From Bristol County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the 2003 proceedings were an abuse of process due to the existence of 1997 proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the stay on the 1997 proceedings should be lifted
  3. 3 Whether the claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in commencing new proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, the 2003 proceedings were not abusive because the 1997 proceedings were effectively disposed of by undertakings and the claimant's solicitors acted reasonably in believing the original claim was withdrawn. Even if not, the stay on the 1997 proceedings should be lifted to allow the claim to be determined justly. The appeal is allowed and the 2003 proceedings may continue.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Statement of Mr Tarren admitted as evidence
  • Paragraphs 1 and 2 of District Judge Bird's order of 10 March 2004 set aside