Senna v Henderson & Ors [2020] EWHC 3345 (QB) (07 December 2020)

Senna v Henderson & Ors [2020] EWHC 3345 (QB) (07 December 2020)

The claimant's applications were dismissed because he failed to establish any legal or factual basis for the relief sought. Brodies LLP was properly authorised to act, there was no justification for a stay, communication should be via solicitors, the special measures sought against the third defendant were unfounded, and there was no basis for indemnity costs. The applications were repetitive, meritless, and in some cases abusive of process.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 3345 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Raj Pal Senna; First Defendant: Connor William Henderson; Second Defendant: CCHG Ltd T/A VPZ; Third Defendant: Mariangeles Ariadna Nowacki; Fourth Defendant: Brodies LLP; Fifth Defendant: Callum Robert Henderson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
07 December 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Applications—various Interim Relief, Injunctions, Stays, and Case Management Orders
Outcome
All applications by the claimant dismissed.
Legal Topics
Injunctions, Strike Out Applications, Service of Process, Jurisdiction, Representation and Authority of Solicitors, Harassment, Breach of Contract, Committal for Contempt, Costs
Civil Procedure Company Law Tort Media Law Injunctions Strike Out Applications Service of Process Jurisdiction +5 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Raj Pal Senna

Claimant

Connor William Henderson

First Defendant

CCHG Ltd T/A VPZ

Second Defendant

Mariangeles Ariadna Nowacki

Third Defendant

Brodies LLP

Fourth Defendant

Callum Robert Henderson

Fifth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Applications—various Interim Relief, Injunctions, Stays, and Case Management Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Brodies LLP should be disqualified from acting for certain defendants
  2. 2 Whether proceedings should be stayed pending criminal/contempt proceedings
  3. 3 Whether claimant may communicate directly with represented defendants

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's applications were dismissed because he failed to establish any legal or factual basis for the relief sought. Brodies LLP was properly authorised to act, there was no justification for a stay, communication should be via solicitors, the special measures sought against the third defendant were unfounded, and there was no basis for indemnity costs. The applications were repetitive, meritless, and in some cases abusive of process.

Court Disposition

All applications by the claimant dismissed.

Orders

  • Application to disqualify Brodies LLP from acting dismissed.
  • Application for stay of proceedings dismissed.