Jerrard v Blyth & Ors [2014] EWHC 647 (QB) (11 March 2014)

Jerrard v Blyth & Ors [2014] EWHC 647 (QB) (11 March 2014)

The claim against the Third Defendant was set aside because he was never served within the prescribed period, was left in procedural limbo, and incurred unnecessary costs. The Claimant's conduct and that of his solicitors justified an order for indemnity costs as their actions were outside the norm and contrary to the overriding objective.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 647 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Donald George Jerrard; First Defendant: Hamish Blyth; Second Defendant: Jeremy Austin Olsen; Third Defendant: Anthony Groves
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Applications; Judgment on Third Defendant's Application to Set Aside Claim and for Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the Third Defendant.
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Proceedings, Costs (indemnity Basis), Setting Aside Claims, Civil Procedure Rules
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Service of Proceedings Costs (indemnity Basis) Setting Aside Claims Civil Procedure Rules

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Donald George Jerrard

Claimant

Hamish Blyth

First Defendant

Jeremy Austin Olsen

Second Defendant

Anthony Groves

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Defamation (libel) / Interlocutory Applications; Judgment on Third Defendant's Application to Set Aside Claim and for Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the Third Defendant should be set aside for lack of service within the prescribed period
  2. 2 Whether indemnity costs should be awarded against the Claimant in favour of the Third Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim against the Third Defendant was set aside because he was never served within the prescribed period, was left in procedural limbo, and incurred unnecessary costs. The Claimant's conduct and that of his solicitors justified an order for indemnity costs as their actions were outside the norm and contrary to the overriding objective.

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the Third Defendant.

Orders

  • Claim against the Third Defendant set aside.
  • Claimant to pay the Third Defendant's costs on the indemnity basis.