Clarke v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 505 (Ch) (27 February 2014)

Clarke v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 505 (Ch) (27 February 2014)

The claimant's failure to promptly disclose the withdrawal of his original expert and subsequent delay in applying for permission to rely on a new expert constituted a serious abuse of process. The prejudice to the defendant and third party, and the need for procedural discipline, outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. The Deputy Master erred in law and principle by treating the claimant's conduct as exculpatory and failing to apply the Mitchell guidance. Permission to rely on the new expert evidence was refused.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 505 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Steven Gerald Clarke; Defendant/appellant: Barclays Bank PLC; Third Party/appellant: Lamberts Surveyors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
27 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order Permitting New Expert Evidence
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claimant's application for permission to rely on new expert evidence dismissed.
Legal Topics
Expert Evidence, Relief From Sanctions, Abuse of Process, Case Management, Disclosure Obligations
Civil Procedure Property Law Expert Evidence Relief From Sanctions Abuse of Process Case Management Disclosure Obligations

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Steven Gerald Clarke

Claimant/respondent

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant/appellant

Lamberts Surveyors Limited

Third Party/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (chancery Division, High Court) / Interlocutory Appeal Against Order Permitting New Expert Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to rely on a new expert report after late disclosure of the original expert's withdrawal
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's conduct amounted to an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Deputy Master erred in granting permission for new expert evidence

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's failure to promptly disclose the withdrawal of his original expert and subsequent delay in applying for permission to rely on a new expert constituted a serious abuse of process. The prejudice to the defendant and third party, and the need for procedural discipline, outweighed the prejudice to the claimant. The Deputy Master erred in law and principle by treating the claimant's conduct as exculpatory and failing to apply the Mitchell guidance. Permission to rely on the new expert evidence was refused.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claimant's application for permission to rely on new expert evidence dismissed.

Orders

  • Permission to rely on Mr. Yates' expert report refused.
  • Dall report may be admitted at trial, subject to the trial judge's discretion.