Frey& Ors v Labrouche

It was fundamentally wrong for the judge to refuse to hear oral argument on the strike out applications; the right to be heard is a core principle of justice. The applications must be remitted for hearing before another judge.

Parties: Appellants: Markus Albert Frey and Others; Respondent: Labrouche (Forester Labrouche)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 03 July 2012
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Strike Out Application
Outcome: Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside
Legal Topics: Strike Out Applications, Abuse of Process, Issue Estoppel, Right to Be Heard, Case Management

Civil Procedure Trusts and Estates Strike Out Applications Abuse of Process Issue Estoppel Right to Be Heard Case Management

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 5 Party arguments 2

Parties

Markus Albert Frey and Others

Appellants

Labrouche (Forester Labrouche)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision Refusing Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the High Court judge erred in refusing to hear oral argument on strike out applications
2 Whether the refusal to hear oral argument breached the right to a fair hearing
3 Whether the applications to strike out should be remitted for hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court decision set aside

Orders

Strike out applications remitted to the Chancery Division to be heard by another judge
Expedition of the remitted hearing left to the discretion of the Chancellor of the High Court