The plaintiff had had his claim re-instated after being struck out. The defendant appealed.
Held: There was material on which the learned Circuit Judge was entitled to reach the conclusion which she did. Although this was a borderline case, it was a proper case to hold that the two threshold tests had been satisfied.
Citations:
[1996] EWCA Civ 1201
Statutes:
County Court Rules l981 Order 17 rule 11
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Hoskins v Wiggins Teape (UK) Limited CA 1994
The plaintiff had delayed the action. It had been transferred from the High Court in July 1991, and was then automatically struck out. The plaintiff sought re-instatement.
Held: The court attempted to put into proper context the problems that . .
Cited – Rastin v British Steel Plc, Todd v Evans, Adams v Geest Plc CA 18-Feb-1994
An action which had been automatically struck out, may be re-instated if there had been good cause for the delay. ‘The proper approach to the exercise of any judicial discretion must be governed by the legal context in which the discretion arises.’ . .
Cited – Reville v Wright CA 18-Jan-1996
Re-instatement of an action after an automatic strike out could be proper if due diligence and a reasonable excuse could be shown. ‘The principles which emerge from those three decisions can be stated in summary form: (a) there are two threshold . .
Cited – Gardner v Southwark London Borough Counci (No 1); King v East Cambridgeshire District Council etc CA 18-Jan-1996
It was not an abuse of process, to restart a claim within the limitation period after an automatic striking out of an earlier action. Millett LJ referred to the ‘same dilatory progress’ all the parties to the action continued to make after the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 04 November 2022; Ref: scu.141069