Taylor v Robinson & Ors [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch) (30 March 2021)

Taylor v Robinson & Ors [2021] EWHC 664 (Ch) (30 March 2021)

The court retains an inherent jurisdiction to strike out committal applications as an abuse of process, including on Henderson v Henderson grounds, even after the replacement of CPR Part 81 and in the absence of a practice direction. The present committal application, except for one allegation, is adequately particularised and supported by prima facie evidence. However, the application is an abuse of process because the allegations could and should have been included in the earlier committal application, and the pursuit of serial committal applications in these circumstances is oppressive and unjust to the respondents.

Citation
[2021] EWHC 664 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Brian Thomas Taylor; First Defendant: John Robinson; Second Defendant: Go Fulfilment Limited; Third Defendant: Nicola Taylor; Fourth Defendant: Diana Woods
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 March 2021
Procedural Posture
Committal Application (contempt of Court) Within Civil Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Committal Application
Outcome
Application to strike out committal application granted (save for one allegation struck out for inadequate particularisation).
Legal Topics
Committal for Contempt, Abuse of Process, Particularisation of Committal Applications, Henderson V Henderson Principle, Inherent Jurisdiction to Strike Out, Bankruptcy and Enforcement of Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Bankruptcy Committal for Contempt Abuse of Process Particularisation of Committal Applications Henderson V Henderson Principle Inherent Jurisdiction to Strike Out +1 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 3 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Thomas Taylor

Claimant

John Robinson

First Defendant

Go Fulfilment Limited

Second Defendant

Nicola Taylor

Third Defendant

Diana Woods

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Committal Application (contempt of Court) Within Civil Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Committal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the court have inherent power to strike out a committal application as an abuse of process under the current CPR Part 81?
  2. 2 Is the committal application adequately particularised and supported by prima facie evidence?
  3. 3 Does the Henderson v Henderson principle apply to committal applications, and is the present application an abuse of process for that reason?

Ratio Decidendi

The court retains an inherent jurisdiction to strike out committal applications as an abuse of process, including on Henderson v Henderson grounds, even after the replacement of CPR Part 81 and in the absence of a practice direction. The present committal application, except for one allegation, is adequately particularised and supported by prima facie evidence. However, the application is an abuse of process because the allegations could and should have been included in the earlier committal application, and the pursuit of serial committal applications in these circumstances is oppressive and unjust to the respondents.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out committal application granted (save for one allegation struck out for inadequate particularisation).

Orders

  • The committal application is struck out as an abuse of process, except for the allegation at paragraph 24, which is struck out for inadequate particularisation.
  • No further committal proceedings may be brought on the same grounds.