Hunt v Annolight Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1663 (10 November 2021)

Hunt v Annolight Ltd & Ors [2021] EWCA Civ 1663 (10 November 2021)

It was not appropriate to order cross-examination of Mr Sarwar because the allegations against Walker Prestons were ill-defined, unsupported by sufficient evidence, and privilege issues were unresolved; cross-examination in wasted costs applications should be rare and only ordered where necessary for fairness with clearly defined issues.

Citation
[2021] EWCA Civ 1663
Parties
Claimant: John Hunt; Defendant/respondent: Annolight Limited; Defendant/respondent: Double T Glass Limited; Defendant/respondent: Paragon Trade Frames Limited; Defendant/appellant: Walker Prestons Solicitors Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Wasted Costs Orders, Cross Examination of Solicitors, Legal Professional Privilege, Case Management
Civil Procedure Legal Profession Wasted Costs Orders Cross Examination of Solicitors Legal Professional Privilege Case Management

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Hunt

Claimant

Annolight Limited

Defendant/respondent

Double T Glass Limited

Defendant/respondent

Paragon Trade Frames Limited

Defendant/respondent

Walker Prestons Solicitors Limited

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 When, if ever, is it appropriate to order cross-examination of a lawyer facing a wasted costs application?
  2. 2 What procedural safeguards are required before cross-examination of a solicitor in wasted costs proceedings?

Ratio Decidendi

It was not appropriate to order cross-examination of Mr Sarwar because the allegations against Walker Prestons were ill-defined, unsupported by sufficient evidence, and privilege issues were unresolved; cross-examination in wasted costs applications should be rare and only ordered where necessary for fairness with clearly defined issues.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order requiring Mr Sarwar to attend for cross-examination set aside
  • No order for cross-examination of Walker Prestons at this stage