Lowenthal v NHS Resolution [2023] EWHC 3560 (KB)

[2023] EWHC 3560 (KB)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
KING’S BENCH DIVISION
Venue Royal Courts of Justice, Strand London WC2A 2LL
Between
MISS LOWENTHALCLAIMANTNHS RESOLUTIONDEFENDANTKnown Legal Representation Mr Adam Porte for Defendant
BEFORE: MASTER EASTMAN BETWEEN:
Other Parties Present and their status None knownJudgmentJudgment date: 27 July 2023 (start and end times cannot be noted due to audio format)Reporting Restrictions Applied: No“WARNING: reporting restrictions may apply to the contents transcribed in this document, particularly if the case concerned a sexual offence or involved a child. Reporting restrictions prohibit the publication of the applicable information to the public or any section of the public, in writing, in a broadcast or by means of the internet, including social media. Anyone who receives a copy of this transcript is responsible in law for making sure that applicable restrictions are not breached. A person who breaches a reporting restriction is liable to a fine and/or imprisonment. For guidance on whether reporting restrictions apply, and to what information, ask at the court office or take legal advice.”“This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.”Number of folios in transcript 27 Number of words in transcript 1,901Date 2023-07-27

Master Eastman:

[1]Thisisan extempore judgement in an applicationbythe Defendant,NHS Resolution,tostrikeoutMissLowenthal'sclaimwhichwasissuedbackinDecemberof2021inrespectofherassertionthat,effectively,the Defendantswereoverpaidby a dintofmoniestheytookoutoftheproceedsofsaleofapropertyinrespectofanobligationshehadtotheminrespectofsomecosts.Hercaseessentiallyisthatshereachedanagreementthatalthoughthe Costs Orderagainstherintheproceedingsaboutwhichthisallrelates wasinthesumofultimately£50,000-odd, hercaseisthatshehadadealandshereachedadeal,shesays,withaMr Henningsinrespectofacompromisetothatwherebythe Defendantwouldtake £27,500infullandfinalsettlement.[2]AsIsay,thisisanapplicationtostrikeoutthatclaimorindeedtogivesummaryjudgmentpursuanttoCPR3.4or24.2respectively.[3]Inthecourseof her arguments,MissLowenthalhas made referencetothefactthatsheisavulnerablepersonandthereforethe Courtshouldmakeallowancesforher.[4]Thisapplicationhasaveryextensivehistory.ItwasfirstlistedtobeheardinOctoberof2022,havingbeenissuedintheMaybefore.Onthedayofthathearing, MissLowenthalcontactedthecourtandsaidshewasunabletoattend.Ithereforegrantedheranadjournment.Thematterwasrelistedfor27Marchthisyear.The Claimantagainemailedthecourtonthemorningofthathearing indicating she had instructedabarristertorepresenther,buthewasunavailableonthatday.Iadjournedthemattertogiveherachancetoberepresented.Thematterwasrelistedfor16June.[5]Onthatoccasion,MissLowenthalattendedherself,andIrememberitwell,andaskedforafurtheradjournment.Inpart,atthatstage,Iremembercitingthefactthatthebarristerconcernedwasoutofthecountrybutwasexpectedtobebackinafewweeks. That is why,inpart,weadjournedthematteruntiltoday.ThereisnosignofthebarristerbeinghereandMissLowenthalhasdoneherbest,andaverycompetentbestifImaysayso,toadvancehercaseherselftoday.[6]I am satisfiedthat,giventheamountoftimeMissLowenthalhashadtoprepareherselfforthishearingtoday inspiteofhermedicaldifficulties,whichIfullyacceptexist,shehasbeengivensufficientchance,asavulnerableperson,toprepareherselfandtopresenthercase,andthereforeIseenofurtherproblemindealingwithittoday.[7]I have furtherbeenprovidedbyherwithaskeletonargumentwhich,albeitthatitcamelate,andImakenocriticismofherforherlateness,Iknow she has beenlabouringunderdifficulties,Ihavehadthechancetoreaditandanextensivewitnessstatementfromherwhich I have alsohadachancetoread.Ifurther had askeletonargumentpreparedbyMrPort, whorepresentsthe Defendants, ontheirbehalf,whichisdatedaweekagoandwhichhasbeenin Miss Lowenthal'spossessionforsomeconsiderabletime.Aweekis,inmyjudgmentquiteample.[8]Theheartofthecase,as I have alreadyindicated,isthesimplequestion,wasthereorwastherenotaconcludedagreementbetweenMissLowenthal,onherside,andaMrHenning,onbehalfofthe Defendants,toreducethesumdue in respectofthesecoststo £27,500,andthereforethe Defendant,havinggotagreatdealmore of thatbywayofcharges,shouldshebeentitledtoarefundofthemonies? Thecaseis,inthosecircumstances,ultimately,inmyjudgment,averysimpleone. I am askedtostrikeitoutonthegroundsthatithasnorealisticprospectsofsuccessor that itoughttobestruckout, as I have indicated,underthetwopossibleprovisionsoftheCPR. I am satisfiedthat it is appropriateformetodealwiththemattertoday.Iamnotsatisfiedthat,bearinginmindthecase'shistory,Ishallgrantanyfurtheradjournment,notthatMissLowenthalhasactuallyaskedforfurtheradjournment,but I am notsatisfiedthatIshouldadjournitanyfurther.Thisparticularapplicationhasgoneonlongenough.[9]ThelawwhichIhavetoapplyisfairlystraightforwardandwellknowntothecourt.Icanstrikeoutandshouldstrikeout if I am satisfied,pursuanttopart3.4(2),thatthestatementofcasedisclosesnoreasonablegroundsforbringingordefendingthecaseorthatthestatementofcaseisanabuseofthecourtprocess,orotherwiselikelytoobstructthejustdisposalofproceedings. TakingintoaccounthowIshouldapproachthattest, CPR 3.4(2)says statementsofcasewhicharesuitableforstrikingoutongroundAincludethosewhichraiseanunwinnablecasewherecontinuanceoftheproceedingsiswithoutanypossiblebenefittothe Respondentandwouldwasteresourcesonbothsides.Aclaimordefencemaybestruckoutasnotbeingavalidclaimordefenceasamatteroflaw.[10]SimilarlythesummaryjudgmenttestisCPR24.2:
"Thecourtmaygivesummaryjudgmentagainstaclaimantordefendantonthewholeofaclaimoraparticularissueif – (a) itconsidersthat – (i) theclaimanthasnorealprospectofsucceedingoftheclaim;or (ii) that defendant has norealprospectofsuccessfullydefendingtheclaim;and (b) there is noothercompellingreasonwhythecaseshouldbedisposedofatatrial."
[11]TheprinciplesarestraightforwardunderwhichIshouldapproachbothofthesetests.Firstly,Ihavetoconsiderwhetherornotthe Claimant in this case hasarealisticandnotafancifulprospectofsuccess. A realisticprospectisonethatismorethanmerelyarguable. I am notrequiredtoconduct,and I shouldnotconduct,aminitrial,andI am remindedbyLewison J inA C Ward & Sons [2009]thatthatdoesnotmeanthe Courtmusttakeatfacevalueandwithoutanalysiseverythingthata Claimantsaysinhisstatementsbeforethe Court.Insomecasesitmaybeclearthat there is norealsubstanceinfactualassertionsmade,particularlyifcontradictedbycontemporaneousdocuments. Thefactualassertionherefromthe Claimantisthattherewasaconcludeddealinrespectof £27,500beingacceptableinplaceofthejudgmentsum.[12]Insupportofthat,attheheartofherevidence,isherrelianceonemailsand (inaudible - gap in audio) tookplaceon 9 December2014.Anemailof11.12inthemorningtoMrScottHenning reads:
"Pleasecanyoucallme?Ihave an urgent medicalappointmentfrom12to1butI'mfreebeforeandafter.Thesituationisquitecriticalasregardsthis.Ifwecangetconfirmationoverthecharge,we'llbedischargedinamatterofdaysasafullandfinalsettlementasdiscussed.Thealternativeistoogrimtodiscussnow." 13. MrHenningrepliesbyanemailatpage24ofmybundlesaying: "
Hi. I have now received confirmation that the following options will be acceptable to us to enable us to remove the charge to you on your property. 1) a one-off payment of £27,500. 2) payment over three years of £32,500. Please confirm the option preferable to you." Theemailchainendsthere.[13]Miss Lowenthalcontendsthatthatreflectsaconcludedagreementbetweentheparties.IregrettosayIcannotagreewithher.Firstly,there was noemailevidencethatsheacceptedeitherofthetwooptionswhichwerebeingproposedbyMr Henney. They mayhavebeenremindersofwhat had beendiscussedbetweenthembefore, I know not,but there is nothingfromhersayingwhichshewasgoingtoaccept. Shesaysitwasagreedorally. That,inmyjudgment,ismereassertion. I amfarfromsatisfiedthatactuallythatrepresentsthetruestateofaffairs becauseifthathadbeencorrect,IfinditdifficulttounderstandwhyMatthewTrinder,justlessthanamonthlater, writestoheron 7 January2015at3.11intheafternoononbehalfofthe Defendantsaying:
"DearElizabeth,followingyourtelephonecallbeforeChristmas, I'venowbeeninstructedtoreopenmyfileanddiscussyourproposalsforapaymentplaninexchangeforremovingthechargingorderononeofyourproperties.Aswediscussedlastyear,thiswillnotbethefirsttimewe'vehadapaymentplanandthechargingorderwilljustberemovedimmediately.Youweregoingtothinkaboutpayingasignificantlumpsuminordertoshowgoodfaith,followedbyregularmonthlyinstalments.Letmeknowwhatfiguresyoucameto.Inthemeantime,Iwillcalculatethecurrentamountofthejudgmentdebt,includinginterest."
That,inmyjudgment,isclearevidencethatnothinghadbeenconcludedinDecember.[14]MissLowenthalarguesthatbecauseofdifficultieswithiPhonesandotherthings,ifgiventimefurtheremailswouldemergewhichwouldsupporthercase, somethingwillturnupiftimeisgiven.Iregrettosaythat,bearinginmindthehistoryofthiscase,thatisjustnotgoodenough.[15]Inmyjudgmentthiscasehasnorealisticprospectofsuccessandforthosereasonsitshouldbestruckoutanditwillbe. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5ATTel: 01303 230038 Email: court@thetranscriptionagency.com