Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor

Davies v Carillion Energy Services Ltd & Anor

The Second Action should not be struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant's conduct in the First Action was neither abusive nor inexcusable; the procedural failures were technical and understandable, and the Claimant attempted to comply with court orders as a litigant in person. Even if the Aldi balancing approach is applied, the relevant factors do not warrant strike out.

Parties
Claimant: Philip Davies; 1st Defendant: Carillion Energy Services Limited; 2nd Defendant: Home Installation Services Northwest Ltd (HIS Energy Limited in liquidation)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Relief From Sanctions, Litigant in Person, Civil Procedure Rules
Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Relief From Sanctions Litigant in Person Civil Procedure Rules

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Davies

Claimant

Carillion Energy Services Limited

1st Defendant

Home Installation Services Northwest Ltd (HIS Energy Limited in liquidation)

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Second Action is an abuse of process due to the First Action being struck out for procedural non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether the conduct in the First Action was inexcusable or amounted to abuse of process
  3. 3 Correct legal approach to strike out applications following procedural default

Ratio Decidendi

The Second Action should not be struck out as an abuse of process because the Claimant's conduct in the First Action was neither abusive nor inexcusable; the procedural failures were technical and understandable, and the Claimant attempted to comply with court orders as a litigant in person. Even if the Aldi balancing approach is applied, the relevant factors do not warrant strike out.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Defendant's appeal is dismissed.
  • The Second Action is not struck out as an abuse of process.