Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Laycock [2023] EWHC 1390 (KB) (24 April 2023)

Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors) v Laycock [2023] EWHC 1390 (KB) (24 April 2023)

Although there was a serious procedural irregularity because the Master was unaware of the claimant's witness statement, it would not be unjust to allow the order striking out the claim to stand. The claimant failed to progress the case, breached procedural rules, and the claim is now historic and of modest value. The balance of fairness and the interests of justice do not require restoration of the claim.

Citation
[2023] EWHC 1390 (KB)
Parties
Appellant/claimant: Jacqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors); Respondent/defendant: Christopher John Laycock
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
24 April 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim
Outcome
appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Libel, Service of Process, Procedural Irregularity, Striking Out, Appeals
Defamation Civil Procedure Libel Service of Process Procedural Irregularity Striking Out Appeals

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacqueline Samuels (t/a Samuels & Co Solicitors)

Appellant/claimant

Christopher John Laycock

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal (libel) / Appeal From Order Striking Out Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be restored after being struck out for procedural non-compliance
  2. 2 Whether a serious procedural irregularity occurred due to the lower court's ignorance of a filed witness statement
  3. 3 Whether the order striking out the claim should stand despite the irregularity

Ratio Decidendi

Although there was a serious procedural irregularity because the Master was unaware of the claimant's witness statement, it would not be unjust to allow the order striking out the claim to stand. The claimant failed to progress the case, breached procedural rules, and the claim is now historic and of modest value. The balance of fairness and the interests of justice do not require restoration of the claim.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The order striking out the claim stands.