(Bahamas) The appellant sought re-instatement of their case which had been struck out for their non-attendance at the hearing. The court had said it would not be listed.
Held: Where a blameless absent litigant whose case has been struck out is seeking its re-instatement, and where there has been no undue delay and there is no likelihood of prejudice to the other parties, their Lordships consider that it is for the other parties to show that the case had no chance of success.’ The court had placed the onus on the appellants, and had erred. The appeal should be re-instated.
Judges:
Lord Bingham of Cornhill, Lord Hutton, Lord Scott of Foscote, Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe, Lord Brown of Eaton-under-Heywood
Citations:
[2006] UKPC 8, Times 07-Mar-2006
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Grimshaw v Dunbar CA 1953
A tenant wanted to defend a possession claim brought by his landlord for rent arrears. Having discharged the arrears, he was told by court staff that he need not attend the hearing. He didn’t and the possession order was made in his absence. he . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.238918