Singh v Kaur & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1554 (29 November 2011)

Singh v Kaur & Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 1554 (29 November 2011)

The judge was entitled to refuse permission for the sixth defendant to serve additional claims given the repeated failure to comply with eight successive court orders setting deadlines, and the proper exercise of discretion under CPR 20.7(3)(b). Delay was not the sole factor; the history of non-compliance and case...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWCA Civ 1554
Parties
Appellant: Ranjit Singh; Respondent: Paramvir Kaur; Respondent: Dilvinderjit Kaur; Respondent: Kuljit Kaur; Respondent: Daljit Singh; Respondent: Surjit Singh; Respondent: Surrinder Kaur
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
29 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Application to Serve Additional Claims (part 20 Claims)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Additional Claims Under CPR Part 20, Relief From Sanctions, Family Trusts
Civil Procedure Trusts and Equity Case Management Additional Claims Under CPR Part 20 Relief From Sanctions Family Trusts

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ranjit Singh

Appellant

Paramvir Kaur

Respondent

Dilvinderjit Kaur

Respondent

Kuljit Kaur

Respondent

Daljit Singh

Respondent

Surjit Singh

Respondent

Surrinder Kaur

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal of Application to Serve Additional Claims (part 20 Claims)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission for the sixth defendant to serve additional claims against other defendants under CPR 20.7(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether delay and repeated missed deadlines justified refusal of permission
  3. 3 Whether the judge failed to consider relevant factors regarding the Singh Family Trust

Ratio Decidendi

The judge was entitled to refuse permission for the sixth defendant to serve additional claims given the repeated failure to comply with eight successive court orders setting deadlines, and the proper exercise of discretion under CPR 20.7(3)(b). Delay was not the sole factor; the history of non-compliance and case management considerations justified the refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application to serve additional claims refused