GG v YY & Anor
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE TUGENDHAT
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
2014
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The case involved a boundary dispute that evolved into harassment and defamation litigation. The Claimant, a solicitor, represented the First Defendant, assisted by the Second Defendant. Following disputes and allegations of misconduct, interim non-disclosure orders were issued. The Defendants filed late applications to strike out the claim and sought damages. The court struck out irrelevant and abusive witness statements by the Second Defendant and his wife and dismissed the Defendants' applications as meritless. The Claimant's application for an injunction concerning the witness statements was partially granted, but further specific injunction amendments were required.
Judgment
Mr Justice Tugendhat :
There are before the court the Application Notices by which the parties apply for the following, among other, orders:
one issued by the Second Defendant dated 13 December 2013 by which he asks for orders that (1) the claim be struck out, (2) an order dated 22 January 2011 and any subsequent amendments or undertakings be set aside (3) the Claimant be ordered to pay to him damages to be assessed under his cross-undertaking given to obtain the order dated 22 January and subsequent orders; (4) damages to be assessed in respect of further claims made by the Claimant which had already been resolved by agreement between the parties on 10 February 2011;
one issued by the First Defendant dated 3 February 2014 by which she asks for orders that (1) the claim be struck out (2) the orders of 22 January and 11 February be set aside (3) the Claimant be ordered to pay to him damages to be assessed under his cross-undertaking given to obtain the order dated 22 January and subsequent orders;
one issued by the Claimant dated 18 March 2014 by which he asks for orders that (1) Defendants file proper replies to his Part 18 request dated 25 February 2014 (2) an order approved by Master Eastman on 27 February 2014 be drawn up (3) an injunction restraining the Defendants from disclosing to any non-party any witness statements (including their own) filed or served in these proceedings, or using the same for a different purpose (4) the witness statements of the Second Defendant and Second Defendant’s wife dated 14 March 2014 be struck out.
The Claimant is a solicitor. The Second Defendant is a retired solicitor. The Claimant acted as the First Defendant’s solicitor in a boundary dispute (“the Boundary Dispute”) which was tried in the autumn of 2010. For this purpose the Second Defendant was for a short time engaged by the Claimant to assist the First Defendant in that litigation. Differences arose between the Claimant and the First Defendant as to the manner in which his firm and counsel were conducting the trial. In October 2010 his retainer was terminated during the trial, but soon re-instated. It was terminated finally be letter dated 17 December 2010. Judgment was given against the First Defendant, and permission to appeal was refused. The First Defendant is aggrieved by what she claims to be the misconduct of that litigation. She has made a number of allegations against the Claimant in relation to the conduct of that litigation and in relat