Singh v Kaur & Ors

Singh v Kaur & Ors

The judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing permission for the sixth defendant to serve additional claims after repeated failures to comply with eight case management orders and in light of the settlement between the claimant and other defendants. The history of delay and missed opportunities justified the refusal.

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 High Court Order Refusing Permission to Serve Additional Claims
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Case Management, Additional Claims, Relief From Sanctions, Discretionary Powers
Civil Procedure Case Management Additional Claims Relief From Sanctions Discretionary 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 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 High Court Order Refusing Permission to Serve Additional Claims

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judge erred in refusing permission to serve additional claims under CPR 20.7(3)(b)
  2. 2 Whether delay and failure to comply with case management orders justified refusal
  3. 3 Whether the exercise of discretion was proper

Ratio Decidendi

The judge properly exercised his discretion in refusing permission for the sixth defendant to serve additional claims after repeated failures to comply with eight case management orders and in light of the settlement between the claimant and other defendants. The history of delay and missed opportunities justified the refusal.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Application for permission to serve additional claims refused