Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd & Anor v Prabhu & Ors [2013] EWHC 2203 (Ch) (25 July 2013)

Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd & Anor v Prabhu & Ors [2013] EWHC 2203 (Ch) (25 July 2013)

The claim was not an abuse of process as the Claimants were entitled to bring proceedings in court to resolve the pension dispute, regardless of the timing or their motive to avoid the Pensions Ombudsman. Any breach of the Pre-Action Protocol did not justify striking out, and the circumstances did not warrant a prospective costs order in favour of Dr. Lamb.

Citation
[2013] EWHC 2203 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited; Claimant: Pell Frischmann Civil and Structural Engineering; Defendant: Mr Ashu Prabhu; Defendant: Mr Richard Lock; Defendant: Ms Linda Roberts; Defendant: Dr Richard Lamb
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
25 July 2013
Procedural Posture
Application to Strike Out And/or for Prospective Costs Order / Interlocutory Application Prior to Service of Defence by Fourth Defendant
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Strike Out Applications, Pension Scheme Disputes, Costs Orders, Pre Action Protocol Compliance
Pensions Trusts Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Strike Out Applications Pension Scheme Disputes Costs Orders Pre Action Protocol Compliance

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 5 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited

Claimant

Pell Frischmann Civil and Structural Engineering

Claimant

Mr Ashu Prabhu

Defendant

Mr Richard Lock

Defendant

Ms Linda Roberts

Defendant

Dr Richard Lamb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application to Strike Out And/or for Prospective Costs Order / Interlocutory Application Prior to Service of Defence by Fourth Defendant

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process for being issued before conclusion of the Internal Dispute Resolution Procedure (IDRP) and to preclude recourse to the Pensions Ombudsman
  2. 2 Whether a prospective costs order should be made in favour of the Fourth Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

The claim was not an abuse of process as the Claimants were entitled to bring proceedings in court to resolve the pension dispute, regardless of the timing or their motive to avoid the Pensions Ombudsman. Any breach of the Pre-Action Protocol did not justify striking out, and the circumstances did not warrant a prospective costs order in favour of Dr. Lamb.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Fourth Defendant's application to strike out the claim is dismissed.
  • Fourth Defendant's application for a prospective costs order is dismissed.