Streather & Anor v Bodker

Streather & Anor v Bodker

It is an abuse of process for the claimants to bring a fresh Part 8 claim to determine the meaning of 'market value' when the issue could and should be determined in the ongoing Part 7 claim. The Part 8 claim cannot resolve the underlying dispute and results in unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

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
Civil (chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction
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 Contract Law Equity 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

Civil (chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim Under CPR 3.4 And/or Inherent Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 8 claim is an abuse of process due to multiplicity of proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the claimants should have raised the issue of 'market value' in the ongoing Part 7 claim
  3. 3 Whether the meaning of 'market value' can be determined in isolation in the Part 8 claim

Ratio Decidendi

It is an abuse of process for the claimants to bring a fresh Part 8 claim to determine the meaning of 'market value' when the issue could and should be determined in the ongoing Part 7 claim. The Part 8 claim cannot resolve the underlying dispute and results in unnecessary multiplicity of proceedings.

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.
  • Costs to be determined (application for indemnity basis costs made).