Phelps v Button

Phelps v Button

The claim is struck out because of inordinate and unexplained delay and serious breaches of two consent court orders for disclosure, which have resulted in prejudice to the respondent and rendered a fair trial on quantum impossible. The applicant's explanation for delay is inadequate, and the responsibility for compliance with court orders lies with the applicant, not his solicitors. The current litigation climate requires strict adherence to rules and orders, and the court will not tolerate such delay and non-compliance.

Parties
Applicant: David Phelps; Respondent: Peter Button
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim and Application to List Quantum Hearing
Outcome
Claim struck out
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Delay in Litigation, Relief From Sanctions, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Delay in Litigation Relief From Sanctions Compliance With Court Orders

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 19 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Phelps

Applicant

Peter Button

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out Claim and Application to List 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 justify striking out the claim
  3. 3 Whether a fair trial on quantum is still possible

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is struck out because of inordinate and unexplained delay and serious breaches of two consent court orders for disclosure, which have resulted in prejudice to the respondent and rendered a fair trial on quantum impossible. The applicant's explanation for delay is inadequate, and the responsibility for compliance with court orders lies with the applicant, not his solicitors. The current litigation climate requires strict adherence to rules and orders, and the court will not tolerate such delay and non-compliance.

Court Disposition

Claim struck out

Orders

  • The claim is struck out for abuse of process and failure to comply with court orders.