Clarke v Barclays Bank Plc & Anor
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- Hearing date: 25 February 2014
- Judgment: 27 February 2014
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Evidence Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involves a claim against Barclays Bank for selling a property at a gross undervalue. The Claimant's delay in disclosing the withdrawal of their expert and seeking permission to use a new expert report led to procedural disputes. The court deemed the Claimant's conduct an abuse of process and denied permission to rely on the replacement expert's report, emphasizing the importance of procedural discipline and just case management.
The proceedings concern a claim against Barclays Bank ("the Bank"), the Claimant's mortgagee, for having sold the mortgaged property at a gross undervalue. The Bank have brought in as third parties Lamberts Surveyors Limited ("the Surveyor"), upon whose advice the Bank says it relied. The property was sold in May 2005 for just under €250,000. Mr. Dall said that it should have been sold for Mr. Yates says it should have been sold for €860.000, which he arrives at first by valuing the property at E555,000 and then adding the Claimant's estimate of the cost of the works of conversion to a recording studio. Whilst Mr. Dall took into account the fact that the property had been converted to a fully-functional recording studio, he did not, so far as I can see, add those costs to the value that he arrived at for the property as a recording studio.
I would first pay tribute to the Deputy Master for having disposed of the application before him, including delivering judgment, in an afternoon. I have had the considerable advantage of almost a full day's argument from Counsel and immaculately prepared Appeal Bundles. I have also had the luxury of being able to reserve my judgment overnight, which has enabled me to consider the authorities with more time. I have further had the advantage of reading the illuminating recent judgment of Mr Justice Andrew Smith in AEI v. Alstom , handed down the day before the appeal was heard.
As I say, the proceedings were commenced as long ago as November 2010. I ascribe no blame to anyone for the delay. The limitation period expired in May 201 1. The procedural history thereafter is crucial to the appeal before me.
By the end of 2012, following wrangles over the consolidation of the proceedings against the Surveyor, it was finally possible to move forward. The parties agreed directions between themselves and the agreed minute of order was sent to the Court for its approval by the Claimant's solicitors by letter dated 18 January 2013. With some polite chasing by the Claimant's solicitors, the directions were finally approved by Master Bragge, with some slight amendments, on 11 April 2013, and received back from the Court by the Claimant's solicitors on or about 18 April 2013. His directions are central to this appeal and I summarise them as follows:
Amended pleadings were to be exchanged by 26 April 2013, with a stay of two months thereafter for ADR (paras. 1-4)
Each party permitted to adduce expert evidence on property valuation,