Where an action was commenced before the new rules came into effect, but an application to strike out an action was issued and decided after they came into effect, that application could not be decided under the old rules. The new rules applied fundamentally different tests, and these tests had to be applied.
Assessment of respective party’s contribution to delay
Judges:
Rix J
Citations:
Times 19-Jan-2000, [2000] CLC 665, [2001] CP Rep 17, [2000] CPLR 142
Statutes:
Misrepresentation Act 1967 2(1), Civil Procedure Rules 3.4(2)(c)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks, Bloom and Co CA 1981
Accountants prepared audited accounts knowing that the company was in financial difficulties, and the the accounts would be relied upon by the plaintiffs.
Held: The accountants owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs. They knew that they would . .
Cited by:
Cited – DP Mann and others v Coutts and Co ComC 16-Sep-2003
The claimants were involved in litigation, They took certain steps on the understanding that the respondents had had deposited with them substantial sums in accounts under binding authorities. The bank had written a letter upon which they claim they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Torts – Other
Updated: 08 May 2022; Ref: scu.78032