Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors

Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors

The Chief Master was entitled to strike out the specified paragraphs as they were peripheral, not central to the main issue, and their inclusion would have required disproportionate resources. The decision was within the proper exercise of case management discretion, and no error of principle or manifest unfairness was demonstrated.

Parties
Claimant: Phillip Gregory; Claimant: William Wilkins; First Defendant: Julianna Moore; Second Defendant/appellant: Irene Pring; Third Defendant/appellant: Shaughan Pring
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order (striking Out Parts of Points of Claim)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Striking Out Pleadings, Forfeiture Rule, Case Management Discretion, Proportionality in Litigation
Civil Procedure Probate Succession Striking Out Pleadings Forfeiture Rule Case Management Discretion Proportionality in Litigation

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Gregory

Claimant

William Wilkins

Claimant

Julianna Moore

First Defendant

Irene Pring

Second Defendant/appellant

Shaughan Pring

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order (striking Out Parts of Points of Claim)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Master erred in striking out paragraph 8(17) and certain words in 8(18) of the points of claim
  2. 2 Whether the power to strike out was properly exercised under the Civil Procedure Rules and inherent jurisdiction
  3. 3 Whether the allegations struck out were peripheral or relevant to the main issue of unlawful killing and forfeiture

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Master was entitled to strike out the specified paragraphs as they were peripheral, not central to the main issue, and their inclusion would have required disproportionate resources. The decision was within the proper exercise of case management discretion, and no error of principle or manifest unfairness was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the order striking out paragraph 8(17) and certain words in 8(18) of the points of claim is dismissed.