With thanks to Craig Delahaye for his update, I thought it might help to share some positive news involving DAC Beachcroft (acting for Collingwood Insurance) and Plexus Law (acting for CIS).
Both stories relate to the abuse of process issues which were determined in Poku v Abedin last month. Oddly, certain Defendant solicitors are still persisting with the arguments.
Garvins Law had two applications listed last week where, in both cases the Defendant was seeking to strike out the hire claim for abuse of process.
I understand that the Claimant was quite explicit in highlighting to the Defendant that the issues, and the case being advanced by them, were on the same footing as those already determined in Poku. Notwithstanding that, the Defendants persisted with their applications to strike out.
In the first of the two claims, DAC Beachcroft were acting for Collingwood Insurance, and caved before the hearing. Garvins thought it may have been on the advice of counsel once they had received their papers. Notwithstanding their concession, Garvins used the appointment to pursue an order for wasted costs which the Judge in Bristol County was sympathetic to. The court awarded Counsel’s fees of the application.
They then had a second case which ran to a hearing in Peterborough County Court on Friday. Plexus Law represented the Defendant, CIS
Thomas Waldron of Kings Bench Chamber, counsel that we have recommended to our members previously, attended for Garvins. He remarked upon the comprehensive and through chronology provided by the fee earner, something that was important in Poku. More importantly, he also reported that the Defendant fell on their sword two minutes before they were called into court incurring costs of £1,800 in the process..
Interestingly, or perhaps perversely, it was Plexus Law and CIS persisting with the argument in Peterborough, the same combination that lost in the Poku case.
As a postscript, I am conscious that a number of you have seen some Defendants persist with these abuse of process applications. I had been asked more than once last week, by more than one solicitor, whether they were being continued because Poku was being appealed.
Hopefully this note helps bring everyone up to speed.