Supperstone v Hurst & Anor

The Master was justified in granting relief from sanction for late and inadequate notice of funding, as there was sufficient material to infer the solicitors' belief regarding the relevant date and no evidence of prejudice to the appellant. The exercise of discretion was not flawed and should not be interfered with on appeal.

Parties: Claimant/respondent: Anthony Peter Supperstone; Defendant: Robert Alfred Hurst; Defendant/appellant: Ann Stephanie Hurst
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
Judgment Date: 16 April 2008
Procedural Posture: Appeal / Judgment
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics: Relief From Sanction, Notice of Funding, Conditional Fee Agreements, Costs Insurance, CPR Compliance

Civil Procedure Costs Relief From Sanction Notice of Funding Conditional Fee Agreements Costs Insurance CPR Compliance

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 Amounts and remedies 2

Parties

Anthony Peter Supperstone

Claimant/respondent

Robert Alfred Hurst

Defendant

Ann Stephanie Hurst

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Judgment

Legal Issues

1 Whether there was evidence to justify the explanation for late service of the notice of funding
2 Whether there was evidence to justify the finding that the appellant was not prejudiced by late service
3 Whether relief from sanction should be granted for failure to comply with notice requirements under CPR

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

Respondent entitled to costs of the appeal on the standard basis
Further submissions on quantum of costs to be made in writing within 7 days of judgment