[2025] EWHC 1680 (KB)

to hold that pleading S.117 of the Act was a new cause of action, it was implied within the words “ordinary residence” or “custom, usage, practice”;

to hold that the S.117 pleading was not a claim arising from the same facts or substantially the same facts;

to hold that the whole of the sums claimed were statute barred;

to hold that the prospects of success of the S.117 new claim were very poor;

to find that a clinical commissioning group of the NHS would have to be joined to the proceedings because or if the amendment was allowed;

to exclude the whole of the amended pleading, when part of it related to factual updates and the DWP benefits received by the Defendant which was mere clarification.

the Judge failed to mention or consider the Appellant’s explanation.

The Judge wrongly considered the delay between May and September 2023 as decisive in determining relief.

The Judge ignored the effects of CPR rule 21 which froze the proceedings and prevented any action after DB was joined because he potentially lacked capacity.

The Judge failed to take into account the increased in the claim value to £70,000.

The Judge failed to consider alternative less punitive sanctions to those in CPR r.3.l4.

The Judge failed to take into account the fact that no CCMC had taken place, for reasons not involving any default by the Claimant (but involving some Court maladministration), and so the late filing of the cost budget had no adverse effect on the action.

The Judge failed properly to apply the overriding objective in CPR r.1.1 properly.