Wahid & Anor v Skanska UK Plc & Anor

Wahid & Anor v Skanska UK Plc & Anor

The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order by not providing an accurate medical mandate and not explaining the absence of the 2005 medical report in the disclosure list. The application before the lower court was procedurally defective as it did not challenge the correct order or seek relief from sanction. There was no procedural irregularity or misstatement of facts by the respondents. The lower court's decision was not wrong or unjust, and the appeal is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Mr Sayed Asadullah Abdul Wahid; Claimant/appellant: Mr Lutfullah Shadkam; Defendant/respondent: Skanska UK PLC; Defendant/respondent: Riverstone Insurance
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 February 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Strike Out of Statement of Case, Disclosure Obligations, Unless Orders
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Relief From Sanctions Strike Out of Statement of Case Disclosure Obligations Unless Orders

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 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Sayed Asadullah Abdul Wahid

Claimant/appellant

Mr Lutfullah Shadkam

Claimant/appellant

Skanska UK PLC

Defendant/respondent

Riverstone Insurance

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central London County Court to High Court (queen's Bench Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the automatic strike out of the claimant's statement of case for non-compliance with an Unless Order was valid
  2. 2 Whether there was substantial or effective compliance with the Unless Order by the claimant
  3. 3 Whether the lower court's refusal to set aside the strike out or grant relief from sanctions was wrong or unjust due to procedural irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order by not providing an accurate medical mandate and not explaining the absence of the 2005 medical report in the disclosure list. The application before the lower court was procedurally defective as it did not challenge the correct order or seek relief from sanction. There was no procedural irregularity or misstatement of facts by the respondents. The lower court's decision was not wrong or unjust, and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal of Mr Wahid from the Order and judgment of HHJ Gerald of 17th May 2013 is dismissed.