Sheikh & Anor v Dogan & Ors [2009] EWHC 2935 (Ch) (17 November 2009)

Sheikh & Anor v Dogan & Ors [2009] EWHC 2935 (Ch) (17 November 2009)

There were no strong reasons to reconsider the judgment under the Re Barrell jurisdiction; the claimants' submissions were improper, repetitive, and constituted an abuse of process. The claimants' pleadings remained insufficient, and no permission was granted to amend or stay proceedings. The order striking out the claims against the first to fourth defendants stands.

Citation
[2009] EWHC 2935 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Anal Sheikh; Claimant: Rabia Sheikh; Defendant: Ismail Dogan; Defendant: Gulazar Dogan; Defendant: Ismet Digan; Defendant: Red River UK Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
17 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Judgment Submissions on Strike Out Application
Outcome
All applications to reconsider, amend, stay, or delay sealing of the order refused. Judgment and strike out order stand.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Civil Restraint Orders, Jurisdiction to Reconsider Judgment, Pleadings, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Civil Restraint Orders Jurisdiction to Reconsider Judgment Pleadings Abuse of Process

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anal Sheikh

Claimant

Rabia Sheikh

Claimant

Ismail Dogan

Defendant

Gulazar Dogan

Defendant

Ismet Digan

Defendant

Red River UK Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Judgment Submissions on Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should reconsider its judgment before the order is sealed under the Re Barrell jurisdiction
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' pleadings were sufficient
  3. 3 Whether the claimants could amend their statement of case or seek a stay post-judgment

Ratio Decidendi

There were no strong reasons to reconsider the judgment under the Re Barrell jurisdiction; the claimants' submissions were improper, repetitive, and constituted an abuse of process. The claimants' pleadings remained insufficient, and no permission was granted to amend or stay proceedings. The order striking out the claims against the first to fourth defendants stands.

Court Disposition

All applications to reconsider, amend, stay, or delay sealing of the order refused. Judgment and strike out order stand.

Orders

  • Refusal to reconsider judgment under Re Barrell jurisdiction
  • Refusal to allow statement of case in one action to stand as counterclaim in another