In the recent case of Moosun v HSBC [2015] EWHC 3308 (Ch), claims brought by two dogs Goldie aged 18 months and Diamond aged 2 years were struck out by Snowden J under the Civil Procedure Rules , Part 2.3 (1).
One assumes that because of the judge’s emphasis on their ages, the law had to regard them as minors, even in doggy years. Would his decision have been different if a litigation friend had been appointed? This can only be a matter of conjecture as the judge appeared to base his findings on the inability of Goldie and Diamond to give instructions. However he went on to say, ’There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void’, but tantalisingly declined to particularise them.
In the recent case of Moosun v HSBC [2015] EWHC 3308 (Ch), claims brought by two dogs Goldie aged 18 months and Diamond aged 2 years were struck out by Snowden J under the Civil Procedure Rules , Part 2.3 (1).
One assumes that because of the judge’s emphasis on their ages, the law had to regard them as minors, even in doggy years. Would his decision have been different if a litigation friend had been appointed? This can only be a matter of conjecture as the judge appeared to base his findings on the inability of Goldie and Diamond to give instructions. However he went on to say, ’There are a whole host of other reasons why proceedings by dogs must be void’, but tantalisingly declined to particularise them.