Wave Lending Ltd v Batra & Anor

Wave Lending Ltd v Batra & Anor

Mr Batra failed to comply with the unless order by not providing an adequate or truthful explanation for the delay in seeking to restore the Part 20 claim. The breach was serious and there was no good reason for it. The court declined to grant relief from sanctions. The Part 20 claim was therefore struck out automatically. Even if the unless order had not taken effect, the claim would have been struck out as an abuse of process due to the unexplained delay, lack of merit, and misleading evidence.

Parties
Claimant: Wave Lending Ltd; Defendant: Mr Ghanshyam Sarup Batra; Third Party: SFM Legal Services Ltd
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Civil / Post Trial Applications; Application to Restore Additional Claim and Application to Strike Out Additional Claim
Outcome
Part 20 claim struck out; application to restore refused; application to strike out granted
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Abuse of Process, Delay in Litigation, Professional Indemnity Insurance, Illegality Defence, Mortgage Fraud
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Insurance Law Relief From Sanctions Abuse of Process Delay in Litigation Professional Indemnity Insurance Illegality Defence +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wave Lending Ltd

Claimant

Mr Ghanshyam Sarup Batra

Defendant

SFM Legal Services Ltd

Third Party

Procedural Posture

Civil / Post Trial Applications; Application to Restore Additional Claim and Application to Strike Out Additional Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Part 20 claim against the Solicitors should be restored for hearing after a lengthy delay
  2. 2 Whether the Part 20 claim should be struck out for abuse of process and/or failure to comply with an unless order
  3. 3 Whether relief from sanctions should be granted for failure to comply with the unless order

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Batra failed to comply with the unless order by not providing an adequate or truthful explanation for the delay in seeking to restore the Part 20 claim. The breach was serious and there was no good reason for it. The court declined to grant relief from sanctions. The Part 20 claim was therefore struck out automatically. Even if the unless order had not taken effect, the claim would have been struck out as an abuse of process due to the unexplained delay, lack of merit, and misleading evidence.

Court Disposition

Part 20 claim struck out; application to restore refused; application to strike out granted

Orders

  • The Part 20 claim against SFM Legal Services Ltd stands struck out for failure to comply with the unless order.
  • Relief from sanctions is refused.