0370 270 6000

Stockman v Payne

6 July 2000
The issues

Striking out – failure to comply with Order for disclosure – appropriate sanction.

The facts

The Claimant sued the Defendant following the accident in 1995 to include claim for loss of earnings. 2 years after commencement of proceedings and Order was made requiring the Claimant to serve an updated Schedule and a further List of Documents. The Claimant failed to comply. The Defendant applied for the claim to be struck out. A document was subsequently served which conformed to a Schedule of Loss nor an expert’s report and also proffered 2 further witness statements contrary to a suggestion in letters that they would not seek to adduce further evidence.

The decision

The Application to strike out was refused. It would not further the overriding objection of the litigation. The correct approach was to limit the Claimant to the existing Schedule of Loss and the evidence filed in support of it. Permission was refused for further evidence to be adduced. Any such Application would need to be made to the Trial Judge

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.



Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.


Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.


Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.


The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up