J Preston & Sons Ltd [2012] EWHC 870 (QB) (03 April 2012)

J Preston & Sons Ltd [2012] EWHC 870 (QB) (03 April 2012)

No abuse of process was established; the alleged failures did not create a substantial risk that a fair trial was impossible given the clear medical evidence of asbestosis and substantial exposure, and the appellant had sufficient opportunity to respond. The threshold for striking out was not met.

Citation
[2012] EWHC 870 (QB)
Parties
Appellant/defendant: J Preston & Sons Ltd; Respondent/claimant: Julie Hurst (Personal Representative of the Estate of Gordon Anderson, Deceased)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 April 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Permission to Appeal / Appeal From Decision Refusing Strike Out
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Asbestos Related Disease Claims, Fair Trial, Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Tort Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Asbestos Related Disease Claims Fair Trial Pre Action Protocol Compliance

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J Preston & Sons Ltd

Appellant/defendant

Julie Hurst (Personal Representative of the Estate of Gordon Anderson, Deceased)

Respondent/claimant

Procedural Posture

Application for Permission to Appeal / Appeal From Decision Refusing Strike Out

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether conduct of claimant's solicitor amounted to abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether alleged failures created substantial risk of unfair trial
  3. 3 Whether claim should be struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(b)

Ratio Decidendi

No abuse of process was established; the alleged failures did not create a substantial risk that a fair trial was impossible given the clear medical evidence of asbestosis and substantial exposure, and the appellant had sufficient opportunity to respond. The threshold for striking out was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Permission to appeal refused
  • Claim not struck out