Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) (11 October 2016)

Phelps v Button [2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch) (11 October 2016)

The claim was struck out because of inordinate and unexplained delay and serious, unexplained breaches of two court orders for disclosure, which rendered a fair trial of quantum impossible and prejudiced the respondent. No adequate explanation was provided for the delay or non-compliance, and the applicant, as an experienced businessman, was responsible for progressing the case. The court emphasized the need for efficient litigation and compliance with orders under the current procedural regime.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 3185 (Ch)
Parties
Applicant: David Phelps; Respondent: Peter Button
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil (chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim and Application to List for Quantum Hearing
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Delay in Litigation, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Relief From Sanctions, Breach of Contract, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Contract Law Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Delay in Litigation Non Compliance With Court Orders Relief From Sanctions Breach of Contract +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Phelps

Applicant

Peter Button

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil (chancery Division) / Application to Strike Out Claim and Application to List for Quantum Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out for abuse of process or failure to comply with court orders under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c)
  2. 2 Whether the delay and non-compliance with court orders preclude a fair trial of quantum
  3. 3 Whether there is a good explanation for the delay and non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was struck out because of inordinate and unexplained delay and serious, unexplained breaches of two court orders for disclosure, which rendered a fair trial of quantum impossible and prejudiced the respondent. No adequate explanation was provided for the delay or non-compliance, and the applicant, as an experienced businessman, was responsible for progressing the case. The court emphasized the need for efficient litigation and compliance with orders under the current procedural regime.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • Claim struck out for abuse of process and failure to comply with court orders under CPR 3.4(2)(b) and (c)
  • Application to list for quantum hearing dismissed as academic