Say v Howard Gurpinar LLP

Say v Howard Gurpinar LLP

The applicant failed to demonstrate a good reason for not attending the trial and failed to show that his claims had reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the court had no power to restore the claim under Rule 39.3 CPR.

Parties
Claimant: Can Say; Defendant: Howard Gurpinar LLP
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
08 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Restore Claim After Strike Out Under Rule 39.3 CPR
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Application to Restore Claim, Non Attendance at Trial, Solicitor Negligence, Reasonable Prospects of Success
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Application to Restore Claim Non Attendance at Trial Solicitor Negligence Reasonable Prospects of Success

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Can Say

Claimant

Howard Gurpinar LLP

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Restore Claim After Strike Out Under Rule 39.3 CPR

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant acted promptly after the claim was struck out
  2. 2 Whether the applicant had a good reason for not attending the trial
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's claim had reasonable prospects of success

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to demonstrate a good reason for not attending the trial and failed to show that his claims had reasonable prospects of success. Therefore, the court had no power to restore the claim under Rule 39.3 CPR.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claim not restored; proceedings remain struck out