Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors [2019] EWHC 566 (Ch) (20 February 2019)

Gregory & Anor v Moore & Ors [2019] EWHC 566 (Ch) (20 February 2019)

The Chief Master was entitled to exercise the court's jurisdiction to strike out peripheral and disproportionate allegations from the points of claim, having regard to the overriding objective, proportionality, and relevance; no error of principle or unjust exercise of discretion was demonstrated.

Citation
[2019] EWHC 566 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Phillip Gregory; Claimant: William Wilkins; First Defendant: Julianna Moore; Second Defendant/appellant: Irene Pring; Third Defendant/appellant: Shaughan Pring
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
20 February 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Forfeiture Rule, Case Management, Striking Out Pleadings, Proportionality, Inherent Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Probate Estate Administration Forfeiture Rule Case Management Striking Out Pleadings Proportionality Inherent Jurisdiction

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillip Gregory

Claimant

William Wilkins

Claimant

Julianna Moore

First Defendant

Irene Pring

Second Defendant/appellant

Shaughan Pring

Third Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Case Management Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Master had jurisdiction to strike out parts of the points of claim under inherent powers and CPR
  2. 2 Whether the struck out paragraphs were peripheral or irrelevant to the forfeiture issue
  3. 3 Whether proportionality justified striking out the pleadings

Ratio Decidendi

The Chief Master was entitled to exercise the court's jurisdiction to strike out peripheral and disproportionate allegations from the points of claim, having regard to the overriding objective, proportionality, and relevance; no error of principle or unjust exercise of discretion was demonstrated.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against strike out of paragraphs 8(17) and words in 8(18) dismissed
  • Chief Master's order upheld