Yorke v Katra

Yorke v Katra

The court held that District Judge Enzer proceeded on a mistaken basis by insisting on a single joint letter of instruction, contrary to CPR 35.8, which allows each party to instruct the joint expert. The striking out of the defence and counterclaim was therefore unjustified. Judge Hull's refusal to set aside the order was also based on a misunderstanding of the rules and should not have been upheld. The appeal was allowed, and the instruction to the expert should proceed in the form signed by the defendant.

Parties
Claimant/respondent: Neil Edward Yorke; Defendant/appellant: Antoine Katra
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (county Court) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Defence, Instructions to Joint Expert, Litigant in Person, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Striking Out of Defence Instructions to Joint Expert Litigant in Person Costs Orders

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Edward Yorke

Claimant/respondent

Antoine Katra

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (county Court) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's defence and counterclaim were properly struck out for failure to sign a joint letter of instruction to an expert
  2. 2 Whether the court below misapplied Civil Procedure Rule 35.8 regarding instructions to a joint expert
  3. 3 Whether the appeal to set aside the striking out order was properly dismissed for procedural reasons

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that District Judge Enzer proceeded on a mistaken basis by insisting on a single joint letter of instruction, contrary to CPR 35.8, which allows each party to instruct the joint expert. The striking out of the defence and counterclaim was therefore unjustified. Judge Hull's refusal to set aside the order was also based on a misunderstanding of the rules and should not have been upheld. The appeal was allowed, and the instruction to the expert should proceed in the form signed by the defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Letter of instruction to the expert to be sent in the form signed by the defendant
  • Respondent to pay appellant's costs of the appeal