Kember v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust & Anor [2019] EWHC 2297 (QB) (31 July 2019)

Kember v Croydon Health Services NHS Trust & Anor [2019] EWHC 2297 (QB) (31 July 2019)

Although the Master misdirected himself by focusing on the timing of the relief from sanction application rather than the promptness of the extension application, this was not material. The breach was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the delay, and the Defendants' relaxed approach to compliance justified the refusal of an extension. The sanction was proportionate to the breach.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 2297 (QB)
Parties
Respondent/claimant: Joan Angela Kember (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard John Kember, Deceased and on her own behalf and on behalf of his dependants); Appellant/defendant: Croydon Health Services NHS Trust; Appellant/defendant: King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
31 July 2019
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Defence and Relief From Sanction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Relief From Sanctions, Service of Defence, CPR 3.9, CPR 15.4, Case Management
Civil Procedure Clinical Negligence Extension of Time Relief From Sanctions Service of Defence CPR 3.9 CPR 15.4 Case Management

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Joan Angela Kember (As Personal Representative of the Estate of Leonard John Kember, Deceased and on her own behalf and on behalf of his dependants)

Respondent/claimant

Croydon Health Services NHS Trust

Appellant/defendant

King's College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust

Appellant/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment on Appeal Against Refusal to Extend Time for Defence and Relief From Sanction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Master erred in refusing an extension of time for service of Defence and relief from sanction
  2. 2 Whether the delay in serving Defence was serious and significant
  3. 3 Whether there was a good reason for the delay

Ratio Decidendi

Although the Master misdirected himself by focusing on the timing of the relief from sanction application rather than the promptness of the extension application, this was not material. The breach was serious and significant, there was no good reason for the delay, and the Defendants' relaxed approach to compliance justified the refusal of an extension. The sanction was proportionate to the breach.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Refusal to extend time for service of Defence stands
  • Defendants may only defend the claim on quantum, not on the merits