Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors

Djurberg v London Borough of Richmond & Ors

The amended claim had no real prospect of success as the alleged agreements were not binding or did not exist, and the claims were inadequately particularised. The inordinate and inexcusable delay, combined with the impossibility of a fair trial due to the passage of time and lack of particulars, justified striking out the claim. Relief from sanctions was not required as no express or implied sanction arose from the relevant order.

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, Consolidate, Strike Out, and for Relief From Sanctions
Outcome
Claim struck out; application to amend dismissed
Legal Topics
Amendment of Pleadings, Strike Out Applications, Relief From Sanctions, Nuisance, Riparian Rights, Res Judicata, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Land Law Planning Law Amendment of Pleadings Strike Out Applications Relief From Sanctions Nuisance Riparian Rights +2 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 6
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, Consolidate, Strike Out, and for Relief From Sanctions

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, res judicata, or abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for procedural non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The amended claim had no real prospect of success as the alleged agreements were not binding or did not exist, and the claims were inadequately particularised. The inordinate and inexcusable delay, combined with the impossibility of a fair trial due to the passage of time and lack of particulars, justified striking out the claim. Relief from sanctions was not required as no express or implied sanction arose from the relevant order.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out; application to amend dismissed

Orders

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