Greig v Stirling & Anor [2014] EWHC 4017 (QB) (01 December 2014)

Greig v Stirling & Anor [2014] EWHC 4017 (QB) (01 December 2014)

The strike out order was set aside because it was made without a hearing, without proper notice to the Claimant, and without affording the Claimant an opportunity to make representations; the Claimant did not receive the order in time to apply within the prescribed period, but the delay was not serious or significant and it was just to extend time; on the merits, the grounds for striking out were not substantiated and dismissal of the claim would be disproportionate. The costs order was set aside as it was parasitic on the strike out and made in the Claimant's absence without proper notice.

Citation
[2014] EWHC 4017
Parties
Claimant: Kenneth Greig; First Defendant: Anthony Francis Stirling; Second Defendant: Anthony Thomas Etridge
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Set Aside Strike Out and Costs Orders
Outcome
Applications granted
Legal Topics
Setting Aside Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders, Service of Documents
Civil Procedure Setting Aside Orders Relief From Sanctions Strike Out Applications Costs Orders Service of Documents

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kenneth Greig

Claimant

Anthony Francis Stirling

First Defendant

Anthony Thomas Etridge

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Set Aside Strike Out and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order striking out the claim against the Second Defendant should be set aside
  2. 2 Whether the costs order against the Claimant should be set aside

Ratio Decidendi

The strike out order was set aside because it was made without a hearing, without proper notice to the Claimant, and without affording the Claimant an opportunity to make representations; the Claimant did not receive the order in time to apply within the prescribed period, but the delay was not serious or significant and it was just to extend time; on the merits, the grounds for striking out were not substantiated and dismissal of the claim would be disproportionate. The costs order was set aside as it was parasitic on the strike out and made in the Claimant's absence without proper notice.

Court Disposition

Applications granted

Orders

  • Order of 7 April 2014 striking out the claim against the Second Defendant set aside
  • Order of 18 June 2014 for costs against the Claimant set aside