Tulsiani v Albin Hunt & Stein (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 2066 (21 December 2001)

Tulsiani v Albin Hunt & Stein (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 2066 (21 December 2001)

The appeal was allowed because the gross and inexcusable delay by the claimant, including breach of procedural rules and failure to progress the action for over six years, made a fair trial impossible and constituted an abuse of process. The judge below erred in failing to strike out the claim, and the original order of the Master striking out the claim was restored.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 2066
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Nilam Gulabrai Tulsiani; Defendant/appellant: Albin Hunt & Stein (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed; claim struck out.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Delay in Litigation, Solicitor's Negligence, Abuse of Process, Case Management Discretion
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Strike Out Applications Delay in Litigation Solicitor's Negligence Abuse of Process Case Management Discretion

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nilam Gulabrai Tulsiani

Claimant/respondent

Albin Hunt & Stein (A Firm)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (civil) / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim against the solicitors should be struck out due to inordinate and inexcusable delay making a fair trial impossible
  2. 2 Whether the delay constituted an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the judge below erred in allowing the claim to proceed despite the delay

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the gross and inexcusable delay by the claimant, including breach of procedural rules and failure to progress the action for over six years, made a fair trial impossible and constituted an abuse of process. The judge below erred in failing to strike out the claim, and the original order of the Master striking out the claim was restored.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; claim struck out.

Orders

  • Set aside the judge's order allowing the claim to proceed.
  • Restore the Master's order striking out the claim under CPR 3.4.