Muhammed Suhel Ahmed v Adam Chojnowski

Muhammed Suhel Ahmed v Adam Chojnowski

The Master erred in failing to apply the required two-stage test for strike out for abuse of process, specifically by not separately considering whether strike out was a proportionate sanction after finding abuse. Although there was abuse of process, strike out was disproportionate; the claim should be reinstated with costs and other financial sanctions imposed instead.

Parties
Claimant/appellant: Muhammed Suhel Ahmed; Defendant/respondent: Adam Chojnowski
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; claim reinstated subject to sanctions and directions.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Overriding Objective, Consent Orders, Case Management, Appeals
Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Overriding Objective Consent Orders Case Management Appeals

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammed Suhel Ahmed

Claimant/appellant

Adam Chojnowski

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Judgment on Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to comply with an unsealed consent order can justify strike out
  2. 2 Whether breach of the overriding objective or delay amounts to abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the Master exercised discretion properly in striking out the claim

Ratio Decidendi

The Master erred in failing to apply the required two-stage test for strike out for abuse of process, specifically by not separately considering whether strike out was a proportionate sanction after finding abuse. Although there was abuse of process, strike out was disproportionate; the claim should be reinstated with costs and other financial sanctions imposed instead.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; claim reinstated subject to sanctions and directions.

Orders

  • Claim reinstated.
  • Claimant to pay Defendant’s costs on an indemnity basis from 26 March 2021 to 2 February 2022.