McFaddens v Chandrasekaran [2007] EWCA Civ 220 (26 February 2007)

McFaddens v Chandrasekaran [2007] EWCA Civ 220 (26 February 2007)

The judge conducted a proper review under CPR 52.11(1), considering all material before the master as agreed by both parties. The defendant's delay in articulating his defence and the absence of contemporaneous evidence supporting his version rendered his defence lacking in real prospect of success. Summary judgment for the claimants was properly entered.

Citation
[2007] EWCA Civ 220
Parties
Claimant/respondent: MCFADDENS; Defendant/appellant: GURU PARAN CHANDRASEKARAN
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
26 February 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Solicitors' Fees, Sham Agreements, Appellate Review, Costs
Civil Procedure Contract Law Summary Judgment Solicitors' Fees Sham Agreements Appellate Review Costs

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MCFADDENS

Claimant/respondent

GURU PARAN CHANDRASEKARAN

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Summary Judgment in Queen's Bench Division to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court judge erred by conducting a re-hearing rather than a review under CPR 52.11(1)
  2. 2 Whether summary judgment was properly entered against the defendant for solicitors' fees
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's delay in articulating his defence undermined his credibility

Ratio Decidendi

The judge conducted a proper review under CPR 52.11(1), considering all material before the master as agreed by both parties. The defendant's delay in articulating his defence and the absence of contemporaneous evidence supporting his version rendered his defence lacking in real prospect of success. Summary judgment for the claimants was properly entered.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed with costs, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed, but costs attributable to the process of assessment (if necessary) to be disallowed.
  • Application for permission to appeal to the House of Lords refused.