A High Court judge has thrown out allegations of collusion and negligence against a law firm after agreeing that the case was ‘going nowhere’.

In Brem v Clark & Anor Mr Justice Martin Spencer ruled that a judge's decision to strike out the claim against Essex firm Rudd Solicitors was correct. He noted the ‘somewhat pitiful state of the pleaded case’ and the fact that pleadings around alleged fraud were ‘incoherent’.

The claimant had appealed the decision of His Honour Judge Saunders to strike out the claim against the firm and the seller of a property in Basildon. The buyer Benjamin Brem had been represented by the firm on the purchase but subsequently a dispute arose about a section of the back garden which was not included in the deal and reduced the property's value by £16,000.

The first letter of claim to the firm alleged fraud and collusion between the solicitors and the seller, as well as negligence. The firm denied the allegations. A second letter of claim alleged that the firm ‘deliberately delayed matters’ contrary to the Brem’s instruction and gave the seller time to register sub-titles of the separated land.

Four days before the case was due to be heard, the claimant applied to amend the particulars of claims. Saunders ordered him to pay the firm’s £2,700 costs incurred by the subsequent adjournment.

The defendants then agreed to a further six-month delay, but when the third hearing date came around, claimant’s counsel was unwell with Covid-19.

Saunders ruled that adjourning the case further would incur greater and needless costs which were disproportionate to the claim.

On appeal, the claimant tried to argue that the strike-out hearing was not properly conducted and should have been adjourned.

The firm submitted that Saunders had conducted a proper balancing exercise of the relevant factors and that a late application to adjourn by the claimant was characteristic of how the litigation had been conducted.

Spencer said it was ‘abundantly clear’ that Saunders had been acutely aware of the difficulty the claimant faced in court.

‘However, as the courts have continuously recognised, the court’s resources are precious and continuous adjournments are highly undesirable, not least because of the knock-on effect on other cases,’ he said. ‘This was, in effect, the claimant’s third bite at the cherry and the learned judge was entitled to come to the conclusion that enough was enough.’