Hurst v Leeming

The action is an abuse of process as it repeats or could have raised matters already determined in previous proceedings, is statute-barred, discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim, and has no real prospect of success. The claim is struck out and summary judgment is entered for the defendant.

Parties: Claimant: Robert Alfred Hurst; Defendant: Ian Leeming
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 14 March 2003
Procedural Posture: Civil / Judgment on Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Abuse of Process
Outcome: Claim struck out and summary judgment for defendant
Legal Topics: Abuse of Process, Limitation of Actions, Barrister's Negligence, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications

Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Partnership Law Abuse of Process Limitation of Actions Barrister's Negligence Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Robert Alfred Hurst

Claimant

Ian Leeming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment on Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

1 Whether the claimant's action is an abuse of process due to re-litigation of matters already determined or which could have been raised in previous proceedings
2 Whether the claim is statute-barred under the Limitation Act 1980
3 Whether the claimant has any real prospect of success on the merits of the negligence claim against the defendant barrister

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Claim struck out and summary judgment for defendant

Orders

Claim dismissed as an abuse of process and/or for disclosing no reasonable grounds and/or as having no real prospect of success
Summary judgment entered for the defendant