Hurst v Leeming [2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch) (09 May 2002)

Hurst v Leeming [2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch) (09 May 2002)

On the facts, Mr. Leeming was justified in refusing mediation as there was no realistic prospect of success due to Mr. Hurst's obsessive and unbalanced approach to the dispute, and the claim itself was hopeless and lacked merit. Therefore, Mr. Leeming is entitled to his costs.

Citation
[2001] EWHC 1051 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hurst; Defendant: Leeming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
09 May 2002
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Summary Judgment Applications by Both Parties
Outcome
Claim dismissed. Costs awarded to the defendant.
Legal Topics
Immunity of Counsel, Costs, Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr), Mediation, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Immunity of Counsel Costs Alternative Dispute Resolution (adr) Mediation Summary Judgment

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

Parties

Hurst

Claimant

Leeming

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Professional Negligence Claim / Summary Judgment Applications by Both Parties

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant was negligent in legal representation
  2. 2 Whether refusal to mediate should affect costs
  3. 3 Whether the claim had any merit

Ratio Decidendi

On the facts, Mr. Leeming was justified in refusing mediation as there was no realistic prospect of success due to Mr. Hurst's obsessive and unbalanced approach to the dispute, and the claim itself was hopeless and lacked merit. Therefore, Mr. Leeming is entitled to his costs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed. Costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders

  • Action dismissed by consent.
  • Costs of the action, including the applications, awarded to Mr. Leeming, summarily assessed at £55,000.