Wearn (t/a Jonathan Wearn Productions) v HNH International Holdings Ltd
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
- THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE BARLING
Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
2014
CHANCERY DIVISION
United Kingdom
CORAM
AI Generated Summary
The claimant, a sound engineer, initiated legal action in 2000 over a disputed contract with HNH concerning historic classical music recordings. Significant procedural delays ensued, largely attributed to the claimant's evolving allegations, including fraud and tampering by HNH. The court, citing inordinate and inexcusable delays, and the claimant's disregard for court orders, found an abuse of process and struck out the claim under CPR 3.4 (2)(b) and (c).
Judgment
Mr Justice Barling :
Introduction
There are four applications before me, as follows:
An application by the claimant dated 28 August 2013 seeking directions for resurrection of this action, including permission to amend the particulars of claim, exchange of expert reports, disclosure, and service of evidence of witnesses of fact;
a reactive application by the defendant dated 30 January 2014, seeking to strike out the claim pursuant to CPR Part 3 .4(2)(b) and (c);
an application by the claimant dated 12 June 2014 for permission to amend the particulars of claim;
an application by the claimant dated 16 June 2014 for joinder of the second counterclaimant as second defendant to the claim.
When it is necessary to distinguish between them I shall refer to the defendant as “HNH1” and the second counterclaimant as “HNH2”. Otherwise I shall refer to them collectively as “HNH”.
The proceedings, in which the claimant is legally aided, were commenced on 4 October 2000 and concern events which occurred in the period 1996 to 1999. Until the issue of the first of these applications in August 2013, the matter had not been before the court since 12 December 2001 when Park J gave directions for a trial which was to take place in October 2002. It is common ground that virtually none of the procedural steps contained in those directions have been complied with, although unsurprisingly there is little agreement as to the reasons and responsibility for that non-compliance.
There has been one very recent development in relation to the application to amend the particulars of claim. On the afternoon before the present hearing began, the claimant informed HNH that certain allegations, which had been maintained for several years and were pleaded in draft amended particulars of claim originally supplied on 18 December 2013 (and further amended in June 2014), were no longer being pursued. I will need to refer to these allegations in more detail in due course, but in essence they accused HNH and others of fraudulent - and possibly criminal – conduct. The conduct alleged included deliberately and covertly tampering with and altering certain music master tapes supplied to HNH and its agents by the claimant, in order to make it appear that the defective quality of CDs produced using those master tapes was the fault of the claimant. At the same time as informing HNH that these allegations are no longer being pursued, the claimant has supplied a further draft of the propos