||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 95 (May)
||William Ainger (instructed by D'Angibau Willmot) for the claimant.
||William Moffett (instructed by Grundberg Mocatta Rakison LLP) for the second defendant.
||28 April 2006
Negligence - Duty to take care - Existence of duty - Breach of duty - Parties' properties connected by water pipe - Claimant alleging breach of duty by defendants - Second defendant contending claimant's claim having no reasonable prospect of success - Whether claim should be struck out.
The second defendant's application to strike out the claimant's claim, pursuant to CPR3.2, was allowed on the basis that the claimant's claim, with our without the amendment sought, had no reasonable prospect of succeeding at trial.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary