Wahid & Anor v Skanska UK Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 251 (QB) (11 February 2014)

Wahid & Anor v Skanska UK Plc & Anor [2014] EWHC 251 (QB) (11 February 2014)

The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order by not providing an accurate medical mandate and not properly disclosing the absence of the 2005 medical report. The application before the lower court was procedurally defective, and there was no serious irregularity or error in the lower court's decision. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to set aside the strike out or grant relief from sanctions.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 251 (QB)
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
Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Automatic Strike Out, Disclosure Obligations, Unless Orders, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Relief From Sanctions Automatic Strike Out Disclosure Obligations Unless Orders Appeal Procedure

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
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

Appeal / High Court Appeal From County Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant was in breach of an Unless Order leading to automatic strike out
  2. 2 Whether there was substantial compliance with disclosure obligations
  3. 3 Whether the lower court erred in refusing to set aside the strike out or grant relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The claimant failed to comply with the Unless Order by not providing an accurate medical mandate and not properly disclosing the absence of the 2005 medical report. The application before the lower court was procedurally defective, and there was no serious irregularity or error in the lower court's decision. The appeal was dismissed as there was no basis to set aside the strike out or grant relief from sanctions.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed; order and judgment of HHJ Gerald of 17 May 2013 affirmed