Danielewicz v Cannon & Anor [2023] EWHC 948 (KB) (26 April 2023)

Danielewicz v Cannon & Anor [2023] EWHC 948 (KB) (26 April 2023)

Permission under CPR 38.7 to continue with a third claim was refused because the claimant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the repeated procedural errors and discontinuance of two previous claims. Ignorance of procedure and failure to take reasonable steps to correct known errors do not justify repeated litigation. The absence of evidential prejudice and ongoing limitation do not outweigh the need for finality and proper use of court resources.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 948 (KB)
Parties
Claimant: Mr Tomasz Danielewicz (a protected party proceeding by his litigation friend Miss Justyna Kosinska); First Defendant: Miss Jessica Cannon; Second Defendant: Motor Insurers' Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury Civil Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Proceedings Under CPR 38.7
Outcome
Application dismissed; claim struck out.
Legal Topics
CPR 38.7, Discontinuance and Subsequent Proceedings, Abuse of Process, Limitation, Service of Process, Protected Parties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury CPR 38.7 Discontinuance and Subsequent Proceedings Abuse of Process Limitation Service of Process Protected Parties

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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Tomasz Danielewicz (a protected party proceeding by his litigation friend Miss Justyna Kosinska)

Claimant

Miss Jessica Cannon

First Defendant

Motor Insurers' Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury Civil Claim / Application for Permission to Continue Proceedings Under CPR 38.7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission under CPR 38.7 to continue with a third claim arising from the same incident after discontinuance of two previous claims
  2. 2 Whether the repeated procedural errors and lack of explanation justify refusal of permission
  3. 3 Whether absence of evidential prejudice or ongoing limitation period should affect the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Permission under CPR 38.7 to continue with a third claim was refused because the claimant failed to provide a sufficient explanation for the repeated procedural errors and discontinuance of two previous claims. Ignorance of procedure and failure to take reasonable steps to correct known errors do not justify repeated litigation. The absence of evidential prejudice and ongoing limitation do not outweigh the need for finality and proper use of court resources.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; claim struck out.

Orders

  • Permission to continue proceedings under CPR 38.7 refused.
  • Claim struck out.