Tomasz Danielewicz v Jessica Cannon & Anor.

Tomasz Danielewicz v Jessica Cannon & Anor.

Permission to continue the third claim is refused because the claimant and his legal representatives failed to provide a sufficient or persuasive explanation for the repeated procedural errors and discontinuance of two previous claims. Ignorance of procedure is not an adequate justification. The absence of evidential prejudice and the ongoing limitation period for a protected party do not outweigh the public interest in finality of litigation and proper use of court resources. The application is dismissed and the claim is struck out.

Parties
Claimant: Mr Tomasz Danielewicz (a protected party proceeding by his litigation friend Miss Justyna Kosinska); First Defendant: Miss Jessica Cannon; Second Defendant: Motor Insurers’ Bureau
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 September 2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Personal Injury / Application for Permission to Continue Proceedings Under CPR 38.7
Outcome
application dismissed; claim struck out
Legal Topics
Discontinuance of Proceedings, Permission to Bring Subsequent Claim, Abuse of Process, Service of Claim Form, Protected Parties
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Discontinuance of Proceedings Permission to Bring Subsequent Claim Abuse of Process Service of Claim Form Protected Parties

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

Parties

Mr Tomasz Danielewicz (a protected party proceeding by his litigation friend Miss Justyna Kosinska)

Claimant

Miss Jessica Cannon

First Defendant

Motor Insurers’ Bureau

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Personal Injury / Application for Permission to Continue Proceedings Under CPR 38.7

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be granted permission under CPR 38.7 to continue with a third claim after discontinuing two previous claims arising from the same incident
  2. 2 Whether the repeated procedural errors and lack of adequate explanation justify refusal of permission
  3. 3 Whether the absence of evidential prejudice and ongoing limitation period for a protected party outweigh the public interest in finality of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to continue the third claim is refused because the claimant and his legal representatives failed to provide a sufficient or persuasive explanation for the repeated procedural errors and discontinuance of two previous claims. Ignorance of procedure is not an adequate justification. The absence of evidential prejudice and the ongoing limitation period for a protected party do not outweigh the public interest in finality of litigation and proper use of court resources. The application is dismissed and the claim is struck out.

Court Disposition

application dismissed; claim struck out

Orders

  • Permission to continue the third claim under CPR 38.7 is refused.
  • The claim is struck out.