References: [2000] EWCA Civ 159
Links: Bailii
Coram: Peter Gibson, Brooke, Robert Walker LJJ
Ratio: The widow appealed against strike out of her claim under the 1975 Act. It had been filed with several mistakes and only just in time.
Held: Her appeal succeeded. Though the defects were real and to be deplored, the paperwork contained all the necessary information: ‘The ‘quirky’ petition was filed at the Stafford County Court and sealed by that court on 10th June 1999 and it contained all the information the defendants needed in order to be able to understand what was being claimed. They were told that Part 8 of the Civil Procedure Rules applied to the claim, and they were also told that the claimant relied on the evidence contained in her witness statement filed with the claim. In other words, all the complaints being made by the defendants’ solicitor were claims about form, not about substance.’
The judge had erred.
Statutes: Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975, Civil Procedure Rules 4.9(1)
Jurisdiction: England and Wales
This case cites:
- Cited – Pontin v Wood CA ([1962] 1 QB 594, [1962] 2 WLR 258, [1962] 1 All ER 294)
The writ had been issued just before the expiration of the relevant limitation period in a defective form in that it was endorsed merely with the words ‘the plaintiffs’ claim is for damages for personal injuries’. The judge in chambers held that the . . - Cited – Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Limited CA ([1967] 2 QB 729, [1966] 3 All ER 843)
The plaintiff’s solicitors had applied to a district registrar for leave of the court for the purposes of the Limitation Act 1963 when they ought to have made the application to a judge in chambers. The district registrar ordered that Section 2(1) . . - Cited – In re Pritchard CA ([1963] 1 Ch 502, [1963] 1 All ER 873)
An originating summons seeking relief was accepted and sealed in a local district registry. It ought to have been sealed in the Central Office of the Royal Courts of Justice. Wilberforce J had held that the originating summons was a nullity and that . .
(This list may be incomplete)
Last Update: 18 October 2017
Ref: 147192
The post Hannigan v Hannigan: CA 18 May 2000 appeared first on swarb.co.uk.