Khiaban v Beard

Khiaban v Beard

The Civil Procedure Rules do not require a claimant to include in the claim form or particulars of claim any sum other than what is actually being claimed. The court has no power to compel a claimant to increase the value of the claim to reflect the full value of the underlying dispute or to strike out a claim for not doing so. The orders striking out the claim and requiring amendment were wrong and must be set aside.

Parties
Appellant/claimant: Mr Khiaban; Respondent/defendant: Tony Beard
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Striking Out of Claims, Court Fees, Subrogated Claims, Small Claims Track, Case Allocation
Civil Procedure Striking Out of Claims Court Fees Subrogated Claims Small Claims Track Case Allocation

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Khiaban

Appellant/claimant

Tony Beard

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court can require a claimant to amend pleadings to reflect the full value of a claim rather than the amount actually claimed
  2. 2 Whether the CPR obliges a claimant to include all possible heads of claim in proceedings
  3. 3 Whether the court can strike out a claim for not including the full value of the underlying dispute

Ratio Decidendi

The Civil Procedure Rules do not require a claimant to include in the claim form or particulars of claim any sum other than what is actually being claimed. The court has no power to compel a claimant to increase the value of the claim to reflect the full value of the underlying dispute or to strike out a claim for not doing so. The orders striking out the claim and requiring amendment were wrong and must be set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Orders of 5 November 2001 and 11 February 2002 set aside
  • Claim reinstated