Judge praises defence solicitors for trying to keep claim active

A judge who dismissed a botched million-pound personal injury claim has praised defendant lawyers for trying in vain to keep the case alive.

His Honour Judge Hassell, sitting in Manchester County Court, said there had been a ‘reverse of conventional litigation practice’ as lawyers from defence firm Weightmans attempted to progress the matter.

The claimant, then aged 22, was seriously injured in a road traffic accident in 2016, but the case stalled and was struck out in 2023. His solicitors, claims firm Gregory Abrams Davidson, sought to blame a since-departed fee-earner who had ‘gone rogue’. They pleaded for relief from sanctions and a reinstatement of the case.

The judge rejected this, saying there had been ‘haphazard progress’ at all stages and several days of wasted court time.

Giving his ruling, the judge highlighted that Weightmans had at one point sought to ‘restore the matter’ after several months of claimant inactivity, and to a large extent acted against its own interests. He added that there had been ‘exemplary cooperation’, going above and beyond civil procedure requirements, and noted the defendant did not adopt a ‘keep-quiet-and-wait approach’, writing frequently asking for updates. The claimant’s solicitors’ responses were ‘sporadic and of questionable value’.

The court had already granted relief from sanction in 2022 when the claimant breached an extension order. A trial date was then listed for a preliminary issue but in the meantime, the claimant accepted a Part 36 offer to settle. This meant there was no need for the preliminary issues trial, but the claimant did not inform the court and did not ask for the trial to be vacated, so it remained listed. In February 2023, the claim was automatically struck out for failure to pay the trial fee.

Shaun Lavery, principal associate with Weightmans who handled the case, said it was a lesson for defendant firms not to jump on every procedural error but instead show the court a willingness to cooperate.

‘When confronted with an party who is consistently failing to progress a matter or falling foul of rules and orders, the first instinct, to pounce, should be subdued,’ said Lavery.

‘When acting for a defendant, firstly ensure that your own house is in order and that you comply with all requirements and directions. Secondly, go the extra mile to co-operate with the claimant; provide reminders and prompts, agree extensions, give fair warning if you are going to make an application or take a consequential step.’

He added this could make all the difference when the court is considering the Denton test and whether the sanction being imposed is proportionate.

This article is now closed for comment.