The court asked whether it was appropriate to allow an extension of time to file an appeal: ‘Save in special cases or exceptional circumstances it can rarely be appropriate on an overall assessment of what justice requires to deny the plaintiff an extension where the denial will stifle his action because of a procedural default, which even if unjustifiable, had caused the defendant no prejudice for which he cannot be compensated by an order for costs.’ Time problems arise at the intersection of two principles, both salutary, neither absolute: ‘. . The first principle is that the rules of court and the associated rules of practice, devised in the public interest to promote the expeditious dispatch of litigation, must be observed. The prescribed time limits are not targets to be aimed at or expressions of pious hope but requirements to be met . .’ and the second: ‘ . . a plaintiff should not in the ordinary way be denied an adjudication of his claim on its merits because of a procedural default, unless the default causes prejudice to his opponent for which an award of costs cannot compensate.’
Judges:
Sir Thomas Bingham MR
Citations:
[1993] 1 WLR 256, [1993] 1 All ER 952
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – The Polygon Corporation v P R Tregunna EAT 14-Nov-2001
The claimant alleged unfair dismissal. The respondent failed to enter a response within the period required, and was refused an extension of time. It appealed that refusal, saying the tribunal had failed to allow for the factors enumerated in the . .
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 – United Arab Emirates v Abdelghafar and others EAT 29-Jul-1994
At a preliminary hearing, when the respondent failed to appear, the tribunal decided that it had jurisdiction to hear a case brought by the claimant against the respondent despite the 1978 Act. The respondent sought to appeal out of time.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 05 May 2022; Ref: scu.181193
