Das & Anor v Barclays Bank Plc

Das & Anor v Barclays Bank Plc

The second proceedings are an abuse of process as they attempt to relitigate issues already determined or that could have been raised in the first proceedings, are time-barred under the applicable limitation period, and disclose no real prospect of success. No conflict of interest was established to warrant injunctive relief against the Defendant's solicitors.

Parties
First Claimant: Mrs Dipa Das; Second Claimant: Mr Sachindra Nath Das; Defendant: Barclays Bank PLC
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, and Related Interlocutory Relief
Outcome
Claim dismissed; proceedings struck out; summary judgment for Defendant; all Claimants' applications refused.
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation of Actions, Conflict of Interest, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Banking Law Abuse of Process Limitation of Actions Conflict of Interest Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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

Parties

Mrs Dipa Das

First Claimant

Mr Sachindra Nath Das

Second Claimant

Barclays Bank PLC

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Applications to Strike Out, for Summary Judgment, and Related Interlocutory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second proceedings constitute an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether the second proceedings are time-barred under the limitation period
  3. 3 Whether there is a conflict of interest preventing the Defendant's solicitors from acting

Ratio Decidendi

The second proceedings are an abuse of process as they attempt to relitigate issues already determined or that could have been raised in the first proceedings, are time-barred under the applicable limitation period, and disclose no real prospect of success. No conflict of interest was established to warrant injunctive relief against the Defendant's solicitors.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; proceedings struck out; summary judgment for Defendant; all Claimants' applications refused.

Orders

  • Proceedings struck out under Rule 3.4 CPR
  • Summary judgment awarded to Defendant under Part 24 CPR