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 scope permitted by the Tomlin order, which only allowed revival for enforcing its terms. The judge was correct to strike out the second claim except for allegations T to V, which were new and not covered by the Tomlin order. The High Court varied the order to allow only allegations T to V to proceed in the second claim and adjusted the costs order accordingly.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 499 (QB)
Parties
Claimant/respondent: Sarah Phillimore; Defendant/appellant: Barbara Hewson
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Appeal (civil) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review of County Court Order
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part; order of County Court varied.
Legal Topics
Tomlin Order, Lifting of Stay, Abuse of Process, Costs, Protection From Harassment Act 1997
Civil Procedure Harassment Tomlin Order Lifting of Stay Abuse of Process Costs Protection From Harassment Act 1997

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

Appeal (civil) / High Court (queen's Bench Division) Appellate Review of County Court Order

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 scope permitted by the Tomlin order, which only allowed revival for enforcing its terms. The judge was correct to strike out the second claim except for allegations T to V, which were new and not covered by the Tomlin order. The High Court varied the order to allow only allegations T to V to proceed in the second claim and adjusted the costs order accordingly.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part; order of County Court varied.

Orders

  • First claim not revived except for enforcing Tomlin order schedule.
  • Second claim struck out except for allegations T to V, which may proceed.