Land Securities Plc & Ors v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm)

Land Securities Plc & Ors v Fladgate Fielder (A Firm)

Claimants do not have a realistic prospect of proving that Fladgate's predominant purpose in threatening and using judicial review proceedings was either collateral in the true sense or improper; Fladgate's actions were reasonably related to protection of its property interests and not an abuse of process.

Parties
Claimant: Land Securities PLC; Claimant: LS Wilton Plaza Limited; Claimant: LS Park House Limited; Defendant: Fladgate Fielder (A Firm)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 March 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application
Outcome
judgment for defendant
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Judicial Review, Planning Law, Collateral Purpose, Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Henderson V Henderson
Tort Law Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Judicial Review Planning Law Collateral Purpose Summary Judgment Strike Out +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 4 Authorities cited 30 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Land Securities PLC

Claimant

LS Wilton Plaza Limited

Claimant

LS Park House Limited

Claimant

Fladgate Fielder (A Firm)

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Summary Judgment and Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does the tort of abuse of process exist in English law?
  2. 2 Can the tort of abuse of process apply to judicial review proceedings?
  3. 3 Is it necessary for the claimant to prove lack of reasonable and probable cause or that proceedings were terminated in their favour?

Ratio Decidendi

Claimants do not have a realistic prospect of proving that Fladgate's predominant purpose in threatening and using judicial review proceedings was either collateral in the true sense or improper; Fladgate's actions were reasonably related to protection of its property interests and not an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

judgment for defendant

Orders

  • Claim struck out under CPR Part 24(2)
  • No basis for stay under CPR 3.4(2)(b)