Elliottt v Stobart Group Ltd & Ors

Elliottt v Stobart Group Ltd & Ors

The appellant failed to comply with court orders for timely service of expert evidence, did not promptly apply for variation, and did not demonstrate good reason for non-compliance; the judge's decision to strike out the claim for psychiatric injury was within the range of reasonable discretion.

Parties
Appellant: Peter Elliott; Respondent: Stobart Group Limited; Respondent: William Andrew Tinkler; Respondent: William Stobart; Respondent: Eddie Stobart Limited; Respondent: WA Developments International Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
13 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Extension of Time, Expert Evidence, Compliance With Court Orders
Civil Procedure Relief From Sanctions Extension of Time Expert Evidence Compliance With Court Orders

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Peter Elliott

Appellant

Stobart Group Limited

Respondent

William Andrew Tinkler

Respondent

William Stobart

Respondent

Eddie Stobart Limited

Respondent

WA Developments International Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to serve expert psychiatric evidence
  2. 2 Whether the claim for damages for psychiatric injury should be struck out for non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to comply with court orders for timely service of expert evidence, did not promptly apply for variation, and did not demonstrate good reason for non-compliance; the judge's decision to strike out the claim for psychiatric injury was within the range of reasonable discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Applications to adduce further evidence allowed
  • Claim for damages for psychiatric injury struck out