Popek v National Westminster Bank Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 42 (21 January 2002)

Popek v National Westminster Bank Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 42 (21 January 2002)

The claim was properly struck out because the pleaded causes of action were either statute-barred or, in respect of the post-October 1991 claims, bound to fail on the unchallenged evidence of the single joint expert. The claimant was not entitled to cross-examine the expert at trial, having failed to raise relevant factual disputes in written questions. No pleaded or particularised case under section 32 Limitation Act 1980 was advanced. The breach of fiduciary duty allegations were not distinct from the contract and negligence claims and failed on the evidence.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 42
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Peter Paul Popek; Defendant/respondent: National Westminster Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 January 2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application in the Court of Appeal From a High Court Order Striking Out the Claim
Outcome
Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Limitation of Actions, Expert Evidence, Breach of Contract, Negligence, Fiduciary Duty
Banking Law Contract Law Tort Law Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Limitation of Actions Expert Evidence Breach of Contract +2 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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Paul Popek

Claimant/appellant

National Westminster Bank PLC

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Permission to Appeal Application in the Court of Appeal From a High Court Order Striking Out the Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Recorder was correct to strike out the claim as disclosing no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim
  2. 2 Whether the limitation defence was properly applied to bar the claims
  3. 3 Whether the claimant was wrongly deprived of the opportunity to cross-examine the single joint expert

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was properly struck out because the pleaded causes of action were either statute-barred or, in respect of the post-October 1991 claims, bound to fail on the unchallenged evidence of the single joint expert. The claimant was not entitled to cross-examine the expert at trial, having failed to raise relevant factual disputes in written questions. No pleaded or particularised case under section 32 Limitation Act 1980 was advanced. The breach of fiduciary duty allegations were not distinct from the contract and negligence claims and failed on the evidence.

Court Disposition

Permission to appeal refused; appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the respondent