Hannigan v Hannigan & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 159 (18 May 2000)

Hannigan v Hannigan & Ors [2000] EWCA Civ 159 (18 May 2000)

The appeal is allowed because the judge below failed to consider that all substantive information was provided to defendants within the limitation period, and striking out the claim for technical errors was a disproportionate response contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 159
Parties
Claimant: Pauline Hannigan; First Defendant: Andrew Hannigan; Second Defendant: Raymond Roycroft; Third Defendant: Sara Hannigan; Fourth Defendant: Elizabeth Hannigan; Fifth Defendant: Nicholas Hannigan
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 May 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Procedural Irregularity, Relief From Sanctions, Striking Out, Limitation Period
Civil Procedure Probate Family Provision Inheritance (provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975 Procedural Irregularity Relief From Sanctions Striking Out Limitation Period

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Pauline Hannigan

Claimant

Andrew Hannigan

First Defendant

Raymond Roycroft

Second Defendant

Sara Hannigan

Third Defendant

Elizabeth Hannigan

Fourth Defendant

Nicholas Hannigan

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether procedural errors in issuing claim form justify striking out claim under CPR
  2. 2 Whether relief from sanction should be granted for technical mistakes under CPR 3.9 and 3.10
  3. 3 Whether the interests of justice require reinstatement of claim despite procedural defects

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal is allowed because the judge below failed to consider that all substantive information was provided to defendants within the limitation period, and striking out the claim for technical errors was a disproportionate response contrary to the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Claim reinstated; claimant's costs to be paid by second defendant and indemnified out of the estate, subject to further hearing.