Whalley v PF Developments & Anor

Whalley v PF Developments & Anor

The appeal was allowed because the defendants had full notice of the claimants' heads of loss through sequential service of evidence, were not prejudiced, and the judge erred in dismissing the wider damages claim on an unargued pleading point.

Parties
Applicant: Stephen Whalley; Applicant: Paul Whalley; Applicant: Mary Bingham; Respondent: PF Developments Limited; Respondent: Christine Thomason
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Damages Assessment
Outcome
appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Pleadings, Damages Assessment, Trespass, Default Judgment, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Property Law Pleadings Damages Assessment Trespass Default Judgment Amendment of Pleadings

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephen Whalley

Applicant

Paul Whalley

Applicant

Mary Bingham

Applicant

PF Developments Limited

Respondent

Christine Thomason

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Damages Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether unpleaded heads of special damages can be considered in an inquiry as to damages after default judgment
  2. 2 Whether the defendants were prejudiced by the claimants' failure to formally amend pleadings
  3. 3 Whether the judge erred in limiting damages to pleaded heads only

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was allowed because the defendants had full notice of the claimants' heads of loss through sequential service of evidence, were not prejudiced, and the judge erred in dismissing the wider damages claim on an unargued pleading point.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed

Orders

  • Appeal allowed
  • Counsel invited to make representations as to the form of order