Naqvi v Harris Cartier Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3042 (QB) (15 November 2019)

Naqvi v Harris Cartier Ltd & Ors [2019] EWHC 3042 (QB) (15 November 2019)

The claimant's pleaded case is intelligible and makes sense, but lacks sufficient evidence and precision to establish professional negligence or a real prospect of success. The claim does not disclose incoherence warranting strike out, but summary judgment is appropriate as the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue. The applications to strike out for abuse of process and no reasonable grounds fail, but summary judgment is granted in favour of the defendants.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 3042 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Kamran Naqvi; First Defendant: Harris Cartier Limited (in liquidation); Second Defendant: Richard Slade & Co; Third Defendant: Jeffrey Bacon; Fourth Defendant: Brian Levy
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
15 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Outcome
Summary judgment granted in favour of the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants. Applications to strike out for abuse of process and no reasonable grounds dismissed.
Legal Topics
Race Discrimination, Duty of Care, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Equality Act 2010
Employment Law Professional Negligence Race Discrimination Duty of Care Summary Judgment Strike Out Equality Act 2010

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kamran Naqvi

Claimant

Harris Cartier Limited (in liquidation)

First Defendant

Richard Slade & Co

Second Defendant

Jeffrey Bacon

Third Defendant

Brian Levy

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants were professionally negligent in failing to properly formulate and advance the claimant's race discrimination claim
  2. 2 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process or for having no reasonable grounds
  3. 3 Whether summary judgment should be granted against the claimant

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant's pleaded case is intelligible and makes sense, but lacks sufficient evidence and precision to establish professional negligence or a real prospect of success. The claim does not disclose incoherence warranting strike out, but summary judgment is appropriate as the claimant has no real prospect of succeeding on the claim or issue. The applications to strike out for abuse of process and no reasonable grounds fail, but summary judgment is granted in favour of the defendants.

Court Disposition

Summary judgment granted in favour of the Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants. Applications to strike out for abuse of process and no reasonable grounds dismissed.

Orders

  • Claim against Second, Third, and Fourth Defendants dismissed by summary judgment.
  • Applications to strike out for abuse of process and no reasonable grounds dismissed.