Dr Akena Adoko

Web www.nhsexposed.com

Email to a friend

Adoko v Pal Adoko v Pal and Todd - Judgement

1 October 2003 hearing

11. At the hearing on 1 October 2003 Dr Pal and Dr Adoko attended but not Mr Todd.
12. Neither in her written or oral submissions did Dr Pal persuade me that I should alter the conclusions which I reached on 31 October 2002 for the reasons given in the judgment of that date.
13. Having indicated this to her in the course of argument, Dr Pal asked me to uphold the decision of Master Eyre, striking out the claims albeit on different grounds. She was, in effect, asking me to treat the hearing as an application by her to strike out the proceedings on the grounds which she has advanced on paper and orally before me. Dr Adoko asked me to reaffirm my conclusion of 31 October 2003.
14. 14. Bearing in mind the protracted history of this case I take the view that I should now, of my own motion or on the application of Dr Pal (although not reduced in writing to a formal application), examine the two cases to see whether, for different reasons than those given by Master Eyre, the claims should be struck out. If I were not to do that which Dr Pal asks me to do and that which I am entitled to do of my own motion, the matter would have to go back before another Master or a High Court Judge. Dr Adoko would, in my view, be in a no better position to argue the points raised by Dr Pal in the pleadings or draft pleadings or in documents attached to a letter dated 27 October 2002 at some future time than he is today. Putting it the other way, given the history of the case and the written material, I take the view that Dr Adoko is not materially prejudiced or disadvantaged by my examining the two cases to see whether the claims should be struck out. Dr Pal advanced her arguments before me on 1 October 2003 as to why the claims should be struck out and Dr Adoko responded albeit not at great length. His principal submission was that I should set aside the challenged orders and, in effect, order the proceedings to continue in the ordinary way.

CPR Rule 3.4

15. C.P.R. Rule 3.4 sets out the circumstances in which a court may strike out a statement of case with the power to make any consequential order it considers appropriate. Sub-paragraph 2 provides:
    
    "The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court
    1. that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim:
    2. that the statement of case is an abuse of the court's process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal to proceedings; or
    3. that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order."
16. Section 8 of the Defamation Act 1996 provides: for the summary disposal of a claim:
    1. In defamation proceedings the court may dispose summarily of the plaintiff's claim in accordance with the following provisions.
    2. The court may dismiss the plaintiff's claim if it appears to the court that it has no realistic prospect of success and there is no reason why it should be tried.
    4. In considering whether a claim should be tried the court shall have regard to
       1. whether all the persons who are or might be defendants in respect of the publication complained of are before the court;
       2. whether summary disposal of the claim against another defendant would be inappropriate;
       3. the extent to which there is a conflict of evidence;
       4. the seriousness of the alleged wrong (as regards the content of the statement and the extent of publication); and
       5. whether it is justifiable in the circumstances to proceed to a full trial.
    5. Proceedings under this section shall be heard and determined without a jury.
17. Although section 10(2) provides that Rules may be made authorising the court at any stage of the proceedings to -
    
    
    1. to treat any application, pleading or other step in the proceedings as an application for summary disposal, or
    2. to make an order for summary disposal without any such application"
    
    no such rules have been made, it probably being considered that the case management powers under CPR Part 3 being sufficient (Gatley on Libel and Slander, 10`hEd. 30.21)

Email to a friend

[Home] [NHS Exposed] [Patients] [Health Workers] [NHS in Crisis] [Legal Issues] [Media] [Helpdesk] [Public Views]

All copyright remains with original authors unless otherwise stated.
No material from this site may be copied, reproduced or stored, electronically or otherwise,
without the express written permission of NHS Exposed.
Where material is reproduced from this site without the express written permission of NHS Exposed, NHS Exposed reserves the right to recover a fee of £100 per copy from the individuals and / or organisations concerned. Use of this site, and / or reproduction of material from this site without the written permission of NHS Exposed, will be taken as acceptance of these terms and conditions.
All material is governed by the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act.