Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the automatic directions timetable simply by issuing an application seeking an order that the timetable be disapplied.
Judges:
Hirst, Morritt, Brooke LJJ
Citations:
Gazette 10-Jun-1998, Times 04-Jun-1998, [1998] 1 WLR 1379, [1998] EWCA Civ 882, [1998] 3 All ER 97
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Bannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .
Cited – Greig Middleton and Company v Denderowicz and Olaleye-Oruene v London Guildhall University (No 1) CA 4-Jul-1997
Direction was given as to the circumstances allowing an appeal out of time after a change in the law affecting a decision after the judgment had been given. Corrections to Bannister v SGB plc made in respect of time calculations in County Court . .
Cited – Whitehead v Avon County Council (2) CA 10-Feb-1997
The automatic directions timetable ceases to run on the stay of proceedings; a date was needed. Automatic directions were ousted if an order was made staying the action, even if it was likely that the stay would only be a temporary one. The . .
Cited – Cashmore v Blue Circle Plumbing Fixtures Ltd CA 30-Jul-1996
Time did not run for the purposes of CCR Order 9 Rule 10 during a period when the action was stayed pursuant to an order for a stay made under CCR Order 6 Rule 1(6) pending the filing of a medical report in support of a claim for damages for . .
Cited – Rofa Sport Management AG v DHL International (UK) Ltd CA 1989
After an action had been stayed, it remained technically in being. It cannot proceed or resume without a court order, but it cannot properly be regarded as dead, in the same way as it might had it been dismissed or discontinued by order. . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hawkins v Keppe Shaw, Solicitors (a Firm) CA 20-Jul-2001
The solicitors represented the applicant in a claim for personal injuries. The action was struck out, and he sued the solicitors for negligence. Composite directions had been given, and the question was whether the making of those directions ousted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 19 November 2022; Ref: scu.144361