Streather & Anor v Bodker [2016] EWHC 1311 (Ch) (03 June 2016)

Streather & Anor v Bodker [2016] EWHC 1311 (Ch) (03 June 2016)

The Part 8 claim is an abuse of process because the issue of 'market value' could and should be determined in the ongoing Part 7 claim. Bringing a separate claim is unnecessary and results in a multiplicity of proceedings, contrary to procedural principles and the efficient administration of justice.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 1311 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Bruce Godfrey Streather; Claimant: Jonathan Patrick James Walsh; Defendant: Christopher Charles Bodker
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
03 June 2016
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out Claim (cpr Part 8) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out)
Outcome
Claim struck out as an abuse of process under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b)
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Multiplicity of Proceedings, Construction of Contracts, Estoppel by Convention, Private Dictionary Principle
Civil Procedure Equity and Trusts Property Law Abuse of Process Multiplicity of Proceedings Construction of Contracts Estoppel by Convention Private Dictionary Principle

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bruce Godfrey Streather

Claimant

Jonathan Patrick James Walsh

Claimant

Christopher Charles Bodker

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out Claim (cpr Part 8) / Interlocutory (application to Strike Out)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 claim is an abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the issue of 'market value' should be determined in the ongoing Part 7 claim
  3. 3 Whether the claimants are entitled to bring a separate claim for construction of 'market value'

Ratio Decidendi

The Part 8 claim is an abuse of process because the issue of 'market value' could and should be determined in the ongoing Part 7 claim. Bringing a separate claim is unnecessary and results in a multiplicity of proceedings, contrary to procedural principles and the efficient administration of justice.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out as an abuse of process under CPR rule 3.4(2)(b)

Orders

  • The Part 8 claim is struck out as an abuse of process.
  • Costs to be determined (application for indemnity costs made).