Barnett & Ors v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd

Barnett & Ors v Nigel Hall Menswear Ltd

The appeal is dismissed because the Master was entitled to conclude, after a proper balancing exercise, that allowing the claim would be unfair and an abuse of process. The claimants or their advisers failed to address the defendant's pleaded case on locus standi in the earlier proceedings, and no sufficient explanation was provided for this omission. The impact on the defendant, including financial prejudice, was a relevant consideration. There was no error of principle or material omission by the Master.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: David Barnett; Claimant/appellant: Jeanette Barnett; Claimant/appellant: David Barnett Associates (A Firm); Defendant/respondent: Nigel Hall Menswear Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 January 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Res Judicata, Striking Out, Commercial Agency, Article 6 ECHR
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Res Judicata Striking Out Commercial Agency Article 6 ECHR

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Barnett

Claimant/appellant

Jeanette Barnett

Claimant/appellant

David Barnett Associates (A Firm)

Claimant/appellant

Nigel Hall Menswear Limited

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim Under CPR 3.4(2)(b)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present claim is an abuse of process under the Henderson v Henderson doctrine
  2. 2 Whether the Master erred in striking out the claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  3. 3 Whether Article 6 ECHR entitles the claimants to a trial on the merits despite procedural history

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is dismissed because the Master was entitled to conclude, after a proper balancing exercise, that allowing the claim would be unfair and an abuse of process. The claimants or their advisers failed to address the defendant's pleaded case on locus standi in the earlier proceedings, and no sufficient explanation was provided for this omission. The impact on the defendant, including financial prejudice, was a relevant consideration. There was no error of principle or material omission by the Master.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed