The court found that the claimant was entitled to bring his claim. Just because it would have been more convenient for the claimant to bring his claims together, it did not preclude him from making this second claim. Doing so was not necessarily oppressive and did not constitute an abuse of process. In addition, there was found to be separate cause of action in respect of this second claim. The claimant was perfectly entitled to have it heard.
The defendant further argued that the claim was out of time. The court noted that the claimant had sent the defendant early notification of his claim and the defendant decided not to response. In the circumstances, it could not be said that the defendant was prejudiced and it would have been unjust not to allow the claim. The court therefore exercised its discretion in allowing the claim to continue.
Despite the claimant making his claim under very difficult circumstances, the court found a way to ensure his access to justice was preserved. However, the factors which were found in the claimant’s favour included early notification of the claim which prevented any prejudice suffered by the defendant and this was a separate claim. Each case will of course be fact specific and this case whilst supportive of such claims does not by any means set an outright precedent for future claims.
Adam Dyl & Louise Taylor, Anthony Gold