header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
13 July 2012
Issue: 7522 / Categories: Case law , Law reports , In Court
printer mail-detail

Practice—Striking out—Abuse of process

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Labrouche v Frey and others [2012] EWCA Civ 881, [2012] All ER (D) 33 (Jul)

Court of Appeal, Civil Division, Lord Neuberger MR, Lord Justice Moses and Lord Justice Rimer, 3 Jul 2012

A judge is not entitled to refuse to hear oral argument on an application, however dim a view he takes of the application having read the papers.

Simon Taube QC, Marcus Staff and Justin Higgo (instructed by Carter Perry Bailey LLP) for the claimant. Paul Newman QC, Emily Campbell (instructed by Collyer Bristow LLP) and Michael Furness QC and Tiffany Scott (instructed by Boodle Hatfield LLP) for the defendants.

The claimant was a vested beneficiary under a will. The defendants were the trustees. By the proceedings the claimant sought various orders against the defendants. The defendants applied to strike out the proceedings. The application was listed with a three-day time estimate. At the start of the hearing, the judge stated to the defendants’ counsel that he had attempted to read the

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

London Solicitors Litigation Association—John McElroy

Fieldfisher partner appointed president as LSLA marks milestone year

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Kingsley Napley—Kirsty Churm & Olivia Stiles

Firm promotes two lawyers to partnership across employment and family

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Foot Anstey—five promotions

Firm promotes five lawyers to partnership across key growth areas

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll