Phillimore v Hewson [2020] EWHC 499 (QB) (5 Of March 2020)

Phillimore v Hewson [2020] EWHC 499 (QB) (5 Of March 2020)

The County Court judge erred in law by reviving the first claim beyond the enforcement of the Tomlin order's schedule, contrary to the parties' agreement. The correct course was to strike out the second claim except for allegations T to V, which were new and not covered by the Tomlin order. The judge's costs order reducing the defendant's costs by 50% was within his discretion given the partial success of both parties.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 499
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sarah Phillimore; Defendant/appellant: Barbara Hewson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order, Lifting of Stay, Protection From Harassment Act 1997, Strike Out Applications, Costs Orders, Procedural Fairness
Civil Procedure Harassment Tomlin Order Lifting of Stay Protection From Harassment Act 1997 Strike Out Applications Costs Orders Procedural Fairness

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

Parties

Sarah Phillimore

Claimant/respondent

Barbara Hewson

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the County Court judge erred in lifting the stay on the first claim settled by Tomlin order without a formal application
  2. 2 Whether the judge erred in allowing new allegations (T to V) to proceed by amending the first claim
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in striking out the remainder of the second claim

Ratio Decidendi

The County Court judge erred in law by reviving the first claim beyond the enforcement of the Tomlin order's schedule, contrary to the parties' agreement. The correct course was to strike out the second claim except for allegations T to V, which were new and not covered by the Tomlin order. The judge's costs order reducing the defendant's costs by 50% was within his discretion given the partial success of both parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Order of County Court judge varied: first claim not revived except for enforcement of Tomlin order schedule
  • Second claim struck out except for allegations T to V, which may proceed