Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB) (04 November 2011)

Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Khanzada & Ors [2011] EWHC 2831 (QB) (04 November 2011)

The court held that the claimants had no real prospect of establishing that they lost a valuable chance to appeal, as the grounds advanced (including the 'Other Terms Renegotiation Argument') lacked sufficient merit and evidential basis. The applications for summary judgment succeeded on the core issue of loss of a valuable chance to appeal.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 2831 (QB)
Parties
Claimants: Asiansky Television plc and anor; Defendants: Khanzada & ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
04 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Under CPR Part 24
Outcome
Summary judgment granted for the defendants on the main claim regarding loss of a valuable chance to appeal. Other applications (security for costs, jurisdictional issues) deferred.
Legal Topics
Loss of Chance, Summary Judgment, Appeal Procedure, Solicitor and Barrister Liability, Security for Costs
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Loss of Chance Summary Judgment Appeal Procedure Solicitor and Barrister Liability Security for Costs

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Asiansky Television plc and anor

Claimants

Khanzada & ors

Defendants

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications Under CPR Part 24

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimants had a real prospect of success in a lost chance claim for failure to appeal due to alleged negligence of legal advisers
  2. 2 Whether the 'Other Terms Renegotiation Argument' was properly advanced and had merit
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted against the claimants

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the claimants had no real prospect of establishing that they lost a valuable chance to appeal, as the grounds advanced (including the 'Other Terms Renegotiation Argument') lacked sufficient merit and evidential basis. The applications for summary judgment succeeded on the core issue of loss of a valuable chance to appeal.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted for the defendants on the main claim regarding loss of a valuable chance to appeal. Other applications (security for costs, jurisdictional issues) deferred.

Orders

  • Summary judgment for the barrister and solicitor defendants on the main claim
  • Consideration of security for costs and jurisdictional issues deferred for further submissions