Guney v Kingsley Napley & Anor [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB) (28 September 2016)

Guney v Kingsley Napley & Anor [2016] EWHC 2349 (QB) (28 September 2016)

The proposed amendments were refused as they were too late, fundamental, inconsistent with the pleaded case, and would fundamentally alter the litigation. The heads of loss challenged by the defendants were either misconceived, too remote, or unparticularised, and had no real prospect of success. Accordingly,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] EWHC 2349 (QB)
Parties
Claimant: Gonul Guney; Defendant: Kingsley Napley and another
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
28 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Permission to Amend
Outcome
Claimant's applications to amend refused; Defendants' applications for summary judgment and strike out granted.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Strike Out, Amendment of Pleadings, Solicitor's Duty of Care, Inheritance Act Claims
Professional Negligence Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Strike Out Amendment of Pleadings Solicitor's Duty of Care Inheritance Act Claims

Source-derived case record

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gonul Guney

Claimant

Kingsley Napley and another

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Interlocutory Applications for Summary Judgment, Strike Out, and Permission to Amend

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant should be permitted to amend the particulars of claim to introduce new claims and allegations
  2. 2 Whether the defendants are entitled to summary judgment or strike out on various heads of loss

Ratio Decidendi

The proposed amendments were refused as they were too late, fundamental, inconsistent with the pleaded case, and would fundamentally alter the litigation. The heads of loss challenged by the defendants were either misconceived, too remote, or unparticularised, and had no real prospect of success. Accordingly, summary judgment was granted on the first three heads and strike out on the fourth and fifth.

Court Disposition

Claimant's applications to amend refused; Defendants' applications for summary judgment and strike out granted.

Orders

  • Claimant's applications to amend the particulars of claim are refused.
  • Defendants' application for summary judgment is granted on the first three heads of loss.