Three strikes and struck out!


the Claimant relied on expert opinion despite the fact that no permission for such evidence had been given by the Court.

Author: Howard Tilney
Reading time: 2 minutes

This article is 2 years old.

Read our disclaimer keyboard_arrow_down

This website content is intended as a general guide to law as it applies to the motor trade. Lawgistics has taken every effort to ensure that the contents are as accurate and up to date as at the date of first publication.

The laws and opinions expressed within this website may be varied as the law develops. As such we cannot accept liability for or the consequence of, any change of law, or official guidelines since publication or any misuse of the information provided.

The opinions in this website are based upon the experience of the authors and it must be recognised that only the courts and recognised tribunals can interpret the law with authority.

Examples given within the website are based on the experience of the authors and centre upon issues that commonly give rise to disputes. Each situation in practice will be different and may comprise several points commented upon.

If you have any doubt about the correct legal position you should seek further legal advice from Lawgistics or a suitably qualified solicitor. We cannot accept liability for your failure to take professional advice where it should reasonably be sought by a prudent person.

All characters are fictitious and should not be taken as referring to any person living or dead.

Use of this website shall be considered acceptance of the terms of the disclaimer presented above.

A claim for breach of contract was recently struck out by the Court after it was asked to consider no less than three preliminary points raised on behalf of our member.

Our members witness attended court with local representation as arranged by Lawgistics, which proved decisive.

The representative first sought a strike out on the grounds that the Defendant had been wrongly named/sued. The contemporaneous documentary evidence before the Court proved such argument.

Secondly, it was argued that the Claimant had failed to comply with the directions of the Court and file/serve any witness evidence.

Thirdly, it was argued that the Claimant relied on expert opinion despite the fact that no permission for such evidence had been given by the Court, as required.

Without considering any substantive arguments by the Claimant the Judge immediately reached a decision on such preliminary arguments.

Points two and three above were said to be in the discretion of the Trial Judge but point one was not.

As a matter of fact, the Judge found that the Claimant had sued the wrong Defendant and even if his claim were to succeed, which was highly debatable, any judgment awarded would be against the wrong Defendant, in any event. As such, the claim was fundamentally flawed and the Judge had no alternative but to strike it out.

The Claimants conduct fell short of the threshold for awarding costs for unreasonable behaviour but he was ordered to pay the Defendants witness expenses for attending Court.

Another victory for one of our motor trade members over a half-baked and fundamentally flawed claim.  

Howard Tilney

Legal Advisor

Read more by this author

Getting in touch

You can contact us via the form or you can call us on 01480 455500.