Van Collem & Ors v Van Collem & Ors

Van Collem & Ors v Van Collem & Ors

The defendant failed to provide cogent medical evidence or a good reason for non-attendance at trial as required by CPR 39.3(5) and established legal principles; repeated adjournments and inconsistencies in evidence, combined with prejudice to claimants, justified refusal of adjournment and upholding the strike out order.

Parties
Claimant: Alfred Van Collem; Claimant: Peter Van Collem; Claimant: Socrates Management Corporation; Defendant: Stephan Van Collem; Defendant: Helios Management & Consulting Ltd; Defendant: Euro Contracting Corporation Ltd; Defendant: Alphagenetics Ltd; Defendant: Citizen Engineering Services Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
22 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Civil / Ruling on Applications for Adjournment and to Set Aside Strike Out Order
Outcome
applications for adjournment and to set aside strike out order dismissed
Legal Topics
Adjournment, Medical Evidence, Setting Aside Strike Out, CPR 39.3, Barrell Jurisdiction
Civil Procedure Adjournment Medical Evidence Setting Aside Strike Out CPR 39.3 Barrell Jurisdiction

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alfred Van Collem

Claimant

Peter Van Collem

Claimant

Socrates Management Corporation

Claimant

Stephan Van Collem

Defendant

Helios Management & Consulting Ltd

Defendant

Euro Contracting Corporation Ltd

Defendant

Alphagenetics Ltd

Defendant

Citizen Engineering Services Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Ruling on Applications for Adjournment and to Set Aside Strike Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant provided a good reason for non-attendance at trial
  2. 2 Whether medical evidence justified adjournment or setting aside strike out order
  3. 3 Whether the defence had a reasonable prospect of success

Ratio Decidendi

The defendant failed to provide cogent medical evidence or a good reason for non-attendance at trial as required by CPR 39.3(5) and established legal principles; repeated adjournments and inconsistencies in evidence, combined with prejudice to claimants, justified refusal of adjournment and upholding the strike out order.

Court Disposition

applications for adjournment and to set aside strike out order dismissed

Orders

  • strike out of defence under CPR 39.3(1)(c) upheld
  • no adjournment granted