Waterman Transport Ltd v Torchwood Properties Ltd
The counterclaim was struck out due to lack of expert evidence and insufficient pleading. Summary judgment was granted for the first three invoices as there was no arguable defence. The remainder of the claim was allowed due to substantive non-compliance with pre-trial directions, resulting in automatic striking out of the defence.
- Parties
- Claimant/respondent: Waterman Transport Ltd; Defendant/appellant: Torchwood Properties Ltd
- Jurisdiction
- England and Wales
- Judgment Date
- 17 April 2015
- Procedural Posture
- Civil / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
- Outcome
- Claim allowed, counterclaim struck out, summary judgment granted, costs awarded to claimant.
- Legal Topics
- Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Professional Negligence, Costs, Relief From Sanctions
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Waterman Transport Ltd
Claimant/respondent
Torchwood Properties Ltd
Defendant/appellant
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Summary Judgment and Strike Out Applications
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the defendant's counterclaim for professional negligence should be struck out
- 2 Whether the claimant is entitled to summary judgment for unpaid invoices
- 3 Whether the defendant's non-compliance with pre-trial directions justifies striking out the defence
Ratio Decidendi
The counterclaim was struck out due to lack of expert evidence and insufficient pleading. Summary judgment was granted for the first three invoices as there was no arguable defence. The remainder of the claim was allowed due to substantive non-compliance with pre-trial directions, resulting in automatic striking out of the defence.
Court Disposition
Claim allowed, counterclaim struck out, summary judgment granted, costs awarded to claimant.
Orders
- Counterclaim struck out for lack of expert evidence and insufficient pleading.
- Summary judgment granted for invoices 3035731, 3056177, and 3060510.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment