Magee v Willmott [2020] EWHC 1378 (QB) (29 May 2020)

Magee v Willmott [2020] EWHC 1378 (QB) (29 May 2020)

The Recorder erred by misapplying the Denton test, failing to give proper weight to the need for efficient litigation and compliance with rules, and by elevating Article 6 ECHR above the requirements of CPR 3.9. Relief from sanctions was refused as the breach was serious, caused loss of trial date, and was compounded by the Respondent's solicitor's conduct. The claim relating to April 2013 was struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process. The remainder of the claim was not struck out as an abuse, as minimal expert support existed, but cannot proceed without the excluded evidence.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 1378 (QB)
Parties
Appellant / Claimant: Simone Magee; Respondent / 2nd Defendant: Joy Angela Willmott
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 May 2020
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Regarding Relief From Sanctions and Strike Out Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; relief from sanctions refused; claim relating to April 2013 struck out; remainder of claim cannot proceed without further application or discontinuance.
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Expert Evidence, Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Case Management Discretion, Article 6 ECHR, Professional Negligence
Civil Procedure Medical Negligence Relief From Sanctions Expert Evidence Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Case Management Discretion Article 6 ECHR +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Simone Magee

Appellant / Claimant

Joy Angela Willmott

Respondent / 2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Judgment on Appeal From County Court Decision Regarding Relief From Sanctions and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder erred in granting relief from sanctions to allow late expert evidence
  2. 2 Whether the Recorder erred in refusing to strike out the claim or part thereof for abuse of process or no reasonable grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The Recorder erred by misapplying the Denton test, failing to give proper weight to the need for efficient litigation and compliance with rules, and by elevating Article 6 ECHR above the requirements of CPR 3.9. Relief from sanctions was refused as the breach was serious, caused loss of trial date, and was compounded by the Respondent's solicitor's conduct. The claim relating to April 2013 was struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds and as an abuse of process. The remainder of the claim was not struck out as an abuse, as minimal expert support existed, but cannot proceed without the excluded evidence.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; relief from sanctions refused; claim relating to April 2013 struck out; remainder of claim cannot proceed without further application or discontinuance.

Orders

  • Claimant's application for relief from sanctions dismissed; no permission to rely on expert evidence served after 15 July 2019.
  • Claim relating to April 2013 consultation struck out under CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b).