Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd & Anor v Prabhu & Ors

Pell Frischmann Consultants Ltd & Anor v Prabhu & Ors

The claim is not an abuse of process as the Companies are entitled by statute to bring proceedings in court, regardless of tactical timing. There is no statutory preference for the Pensions Ombudsman, and breach of the Protocol does not justify striking out. Dr. Lamb's claim does not fall within Buckton categories for a prospective costs order, and no evidence supports a costs order based on misconduct.

Parties
Claimant: Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited; Claimant: Pell Frischmann Civil and Structural Engineering Limited; 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
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Prospective Costs Order)
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Costs Orders, Pre Action Protocol, Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman, Trustee Powers
Pensions Trusts Civil Procedure Abuse of Process Costs Orders Pre Action Protocol Jurisdiction of Pensions Ombudsman Trustee Powers

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 7 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pell Frischmann Consultants Limited

Claimant

Pell Frischmann Civil and Structural Engineering Limited

Claimant

Mr Ashu Prabhu

Defendant

Mr Richard Lock

Defendant

Ms Linda Roberts

Defendant

Dr Richard Lamb

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Prospective Costs Order)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether a prospective costs order should be made in favour of Dr. Lamb

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is not an abuse of process as the Companies are entitled by statute to bring proceedings in court, regardless of tactical timing. There is no statutory preference for the Pensions Ombudsman, and breach of the Protocol does not justify striking out. Dr. Lamb's claim does not fall within Buckton categories for a prospective costs order, and no evidence supports a costs order based on misconduct.

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