Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch) (9th May, 2002)

Hurst v Leeming [2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch) (9th May, 2002)

The claim was hopeless and lacked merit; the defendant was justified in refusing mediation as there was no realistic prospect of success due to the claimant's character and attitude; therefore, the defendant is entitled to costs.

Citation
[2002] EWHC 1051 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Hurst; Defendant: Leeming
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Professional Negligence Claim / Summary Judgment Applications by Both Parties
Outcome
Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.
Legal Topics
Immunity of Counsel, Costs, Alternative Dispute Resolution, Mediation, Summary Judgment
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Immunity of Counsel Costs Alternative Dispute Resolution 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 3 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

The claim was hopeless and lacked merit; the defendant was justified in refusing mediation as there was no realistic prospect of success due to the claimant's character and attitude; therefore, the defendant is entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; costs awarded to defendant.

Orders

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