In the new litigation culture it was correct to strike out a second action which fundamentally re-litigated a case which had previously been struck out on the grounds of abuse of process or delay. The court’s case management required it to consider whether it was appropriate to expend time on a case. When facing such an application, the court must have regard to the earlier action, and the decisions then taken. Older rules against striking out where and action could be recommenced without difficulty, should be set aside. Here a bank sought to pursue as a speciality debt a debt it had already claimed as a simple contract debt.
Chadwick LJ said: ‘For my part, I think that the time has come for this court to hold that the ‘change of culture’ which has taken place in the last three years-and, in particular, the advent of the Civil Procedure Rules-has led to a position in which it is no longer open to a litigant whose action has been struck out on the grounds of inordinate and inexcusable delay to rely on the principle that a second action commenced within the limitation period will not be struck out save in exceptional cases. The position, now, is that the court must address the application to strike out the second action with the overriding objective of the Civil Procedure Rules in mind-and must consider whether the claimant’s wish to have ‘a second bite at the cherry’ outweighs the need to allot its own limited resources to other cases.’
Judges:
Chadwick LJ, Rattee J
Citations:
Times 05-Jul-2000, Gazette 06-Jul-2000, [2000] EWCA Civ 197, [2001] Ch 291, [2000] 3 WLR 1400, [2000] All ER (D) 843
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton and Another ChD 18-Jun-1999
The fact that earlier proceedings under a mortgage to recover the debt as a simple contract debt had been dismissed for want of prosecution, did not prevent the mortgagee later proceeding under the mortgage as a specialty debt. . .
Approved – Arbuthnot Latham Bank Limited; Nordbanken London Branch v Trafalgar Holdings Limited; Ashton and Ashton CA 16-Dec-1997
The issue was the appropriateness of a Court striking an action out where there has been considerable delay if: (i) the cause of action relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings would be statute barred if the action were to be struck out, but . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – Securum Finance Ltd v Ashton and Another ChD 18-Jun-1999
The fact that earlier proceedings under a mortgage to recover the debt as a simple contract debt had been dismissed for want of prosecution, did not prevent the mortgagee later proceeding under the mortgage as a specialty debt. . .
Cited – Celador Productions Ltd v Melville ChD 21-Oct-2004
The applicants each alleged breach of copyright and misuse of confidential information in the format of the television program ‘Who wants to be a Millionaire’. The defendant appealed a refusal to strike out the claim. It was not contended that no . .
Cited – Wahab v Khan and Others; In re Abdus Sattar Sheikh deceased ChD 12-Apr-2011
The claimant had asked the court to revoke the probate granted in his brother’s estate. He appealed now against a strike out of his request. He alleged that the will was a forgery. The executor’s and defendants were not relations of the deceased, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Banking
Updated: 31 May 2022; Ref: scu.147230