The court’s powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which could recompense the other party and seek to achieve justice as between the parties. The new Civil Procedure Rules had ushered in a new regime. Decisions as t the pre-Cpr regime ae no longer binding, though they may be helpful usd with caution. Lord Woolf pointed out the array of sanctions made available under the CPR which might enable a court to do justice to the parties, after delay had occurred, without resorting to the draconian measure of a strike out order.
Lord Woolf MR said: ‘it is also essential that parties do not disregard timetables laid down. If they do, then the court must make sure that the default does not go unmarked. If the court were to ignore delays which occur, then undoubtedly there will be a return to the previous culture of regarding time limits as unimportant.’
Judges:
Lord Woolf MR, Brooke, Robert Walker LJJ
Citations:
Times 05-Oct-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 1972, [1999] 1 WLR 1926, [1999] 4 All ER 934, [2000] CP Rep 6, [2000] 1 Costs LR 67
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
Cited by:
Cited – Nasser v United Bank of Kuwait CA 21-Dec-2001
The claimant appealed against a decision to strike out her claim for want of prosecution, and a failure to pay a sum ordered as security for costs. She had put jewelry with the defendants for safe keeping, and alleged it had been stolen. The lock on . .
Cited – Bloomsbury Publishing Group Ltd and J K Rowling v News Group Newspapers Ltd and others ChD 23-May-2003
The publishers had gone to great lengths to keep advance copies of a forthcoming book in the Harry Potter series secret. They became aware that some had been stolen from the printers and sought injunctions against the defendants and another unnamed . .
Cited – Price v Price (Trading As Poppyland Headware) CA 26-Jun-2003
The claimant sought damages from his wife for personal injuries. He had been late beginning the claim, and it was served without particulars. He then failed to serve the particulars within 14 days. Totty and then Sayers had clarified the procedure . .
Cited – Parnall v Hurst and others ChD 15-May-2003
The court refused an appeal by the defendants from an order refusing to strike out the claim.
Held: Where the court could deal with a matter justly without striking a case out, by possibly imposing a sanction as to costs, it should do so. Here . .
Cited – Di Placito v Slater and others CA 19-Dec-2003
The parties had earlier compromised their dispute, with the claimant undertaking not to lodge any further claim unless he did so within a certain time. They now sought to commence action.
Held: When considering whether to discharge such an . .
Cited – Arrow Nominees Inc and Another v Blackledge and Others CA 22-Jun-2000
A petition had been lodged alleging unfair prejudice in the conduct of the company’s affairs. The defendants alleged that when applying for relief under section 459, the claimants had attempted to pervert the course of justice by producing forged or . .
Cited – Ministry of Defence v Foxley and others Admn 10-Dec-2007
In 1992, the claimant and members of his family were made subject to restraint orders after his conviction for corruption. They now applied for discharge of the orders claiming excessive delay. Nothing had moved forward since 1996, saying hey had in . .
Cited – Weston and Another v Weston and others ChD 21-Oct-2005
Action to wind up partnership, and appeal against permission to proceed with assessment of costs despite a twenty year delay. . .
Cited – Irvine and Another v Talksport Ltd CA 18-Jan-2002
The claimants renewed their application for permission to appeal from an order granting an application made by the defendant, Talksport Ltd, to exclude certain evidence which the claimants appeared to wish to adduce at the trial of the action. Mr . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 23 May 2022; Ref: scu.136014