Gunn & Anor (t/a Chipperfield Garden Machinery) v Taygroup Ltd

Gunn & Anor (t/a Chipperfield Garden Machinery) v Taygroup Ltd

The Claimants failed to demonstrate real prejudice resulting from the withdrawal of the admission; there was no evidence of lost or deteriorated evidence, and the increase in claim quantum justified reconsideration by the Defendant. Therefore, the application to strike out parts of the Defence is dismissed.

Parties
Claimant: Andrew Gunn; Claimant: Mark Lloyd-Wilson (Trading as Chipperfield Garden Machinery); Defendant: Taygroup Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
06 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Specific Disclosure)
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Withdrawal of Admissions, Strike Out Applications, Specific Disclosure, Negligence, Pre Action Admissions, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Tort Withdrawal of Admissions Strike Out Applications Specific Disclosure Negligence Pre Action Admissions Abuse of Process

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Gunn

Claimant

Mark Lloyd-Wilson (Trading as Chipperfield Garden Machinery)

Claimant

Taygroup Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application (strike Out and Specific Disclosure)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant can withdraw an admission of liability made pre-action
  2. 2 Whether parts of the Defence should be struck out for abuse of process or obstructing just disposal
  3. 3 Whether the Claimants suffered prejudice from the withdrawal of the admission

Ratio Decidendi

The Claimants failed to demonstrate real prejudice resulting from the withdrawal of the admission; there was no evidence of lost or deteriorated evidence, and the increase in claim quantum justified reconsideration by the Defendant. Therefore, the application to strike out parts of the Defence is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Claimants' application to strike out parts of the Defence is dismissed.
  • Specific disclosure deferred to hearing of Defendant's application to amend Defence and add third party.