Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors [2019] EWHC 3342 (Ch) (18 December 2019)

Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors [2019] EWHC 3342 (Ch) (18 December 2019)

The application to amend the particulars of claim was refused and the claim struck out because the amended claim had no real prospect of success, the alleged agreements relied upon by the claimant did not exist or were not binding, the claims were inadequately particularised, and the delay rendered a fair trial impossible. The first defendant's procedural default did not require relief from sanctions as no implied sanction arose from the relevant order.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3342 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Myck Djurberg; First Defendant: The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond; Second Defendant: Her Majesty's Crown Estate Commissioners
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Applications to Amend Particulars of Claim and to Strike Out Claim
Outcome
Claim struck out; permission to amend refused
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Relief From Sanctions, Nuisance, Riparian Rights, Planning Enforcement, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Property Law Planning Law Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Relief From Sanctions Nuisance Riparian Rights +3 more

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 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Myck Djurberg

Claimant

The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Richmond

First Defendant

Her Majesty's Crown Estate Commissioners

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Applications to Amend Particulars of Claim and to Strike Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted to amend the particulars of claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out for delay, want of particularity, or abuse of process/res judicata
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions is required for the first defendant's procedural default

Ratio Decidendi

The application to amend the particulars of claim was refused and the claim struck out because the amended claim had no real prospect of success, the alleged agreements relied upon by the claimant did not exist or were not binding, the claims were inadequately particularised, and the delay rendered a fair trial impossible. The first defendant's procedural default did not require relief from sanctions as no implied sanction arose from the relevant order.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; permission to amend refused

Orders

  • Application for permission to amend particulars of claim dismissed
  • Claim struck out