“The judge observed, that unlike the District Judge, he had the advantage of the later authorities on this issue, since Richard Lewis & Others -v- Ward Hadaway  EWHC 3503 (Ch
. The judge reviewed the authorities in some detail, in particular
The decision of Mr Justice Stuart-Smith in Dixon -v- Radley House Partnership  EWHC 2411 (TCC). (Appropriate fee is determined by reference to the figure stated on the claim form).
Mr Roger ter Haar QC (sitting as a High Court Judge) in Glenluce Fishing Company Limited -v- Watermota Limited EWHC 1807 (TCC). (Amendment of statement of value considered by using “traditional” principles in relation to amendment).
The judge also accepted and adopted the observations made by His Honour Judge Goldsmark QC in Wells -v- Wood & Nottinghamshire Council (Lincoln County Court 09/12/2016) (Claim for issued for limitation purposes, regardless of incorrect fee being paid) [A copy of that judgment is available here b78ym721-wells-v-wood-notts-cc-judgment-final]”
There have been a number of cases in relation to the consequences for a claimant when the correct court fee has not been paid upon issue. This issue was considered by His Honour Judge Robinson this week in an appeal in the case of Wiseman -v- Marston’s PLC (Sheffield County Court 21st December 2016).
(This was an extempore judgment. This post is based on my own notes of the judgment where I represented the claimant. The claimant has given her permission for this case to be reported).
- A failure by a solicitor to put the correct value on the claim and pay the correct fee was not an abuse of process.
- The court should allow the claimant’s application to amend the statement of value.
- The defendant’s applications for summary judgment and to strike out the claim as an abuse of process were dismissed.
The claimant brought…
View original post 993 more words