0870 7777 100 Visit Jennings Debt Recovery

 

 

Rattan v UBS AG, London Branch [2014] EWHC 665 (Comm) (12 March 2014)

Posted: in by Michelle Barron.

“This is a case about misselling (or as it is rather charmingly put it in the claimant’s skeleton argument for the first case management conference, misspelling) of investments.

At the CMC, and despite my expression of hope that there might have been an outbreak of common sense, Mr Dov Ohrenstein for the claimant contended that because the defendant had failed to exchange and file its costs budget in time, it should be treated pursuant to CPR 3.14 as having filed a budget comprising only the applicable court fees and needed to apply for relief from sanctions.

On the facts of this case that contention is completely without merit and I rejected it without calling on Mr Nik Yeo, counsel for the defendant, to amplify what he had said in his skeleton argument. I indicated that I would give my reasons in writing. I did so, not because of any doubt as to the outcome, but in order to reinforce the message that the Commercial Court will firmly discourage the taking of futile and time wasting procedural points. I would have thought this would already have been clear from the judgment of Leggatt J in Summit Navigation Ltd v Generali Romania Asigurare Reasigurare SA [2014] EWHC 398 (Comm), but it appears that the message may not yet have been heard.”

View All News

CONTACT