The solicitors represented the applicant in a claim for personal injuries. The action was struck out, and he sued the solicitors for negligence. Composite directions had been given, and the question was whether the making of those directions ousted the automatic directions, under which the action was struck out for delay.
Held: That question had to be answered for each case. In this case, an order delaying disclosure of an expert’s report, and an order for a split trial had been made. The rules for serving of evidence, could clearly accommodate the particular order for the evidence here, and the claimant was not prevented from applying for a date for trial. The application for a split trial had been withdrawn without the timetable being interrupted.
Judges:
Mr Justice Astill, Lord Justice Waller, Lord Justice Latham
Citations:
Times 25-Sep-2001, Gazette 27-Sep-2001, [2001] EWCA Civ 1160
Links:
Statutes:
County Court Rules 1981 Order 17, rule 11(9)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Ashworth v McKay Foods Ltd CA 16-Nov-1995
Where automatic directions had not been followed, a later hearing application was not an not abuse of process. . .
Cited – Bannister v SGB Plc and others and 19 Other Appeals CA 25-Apr-1997
Detailed guidance was given as to several different problems of interpretation of Order 17 r 11, dealing with automatic directions. Definitive guidelines were given for the interpretation of automatic directions and strike out provisions in the . .
Cited – Cockeril v Tambrands Limited CA 21-May-1998
Even if a case is quite unsuitable for automatic directions, the plaintiff has an obligation to apply instead for specific manual directions to stand in their stead. It would be wrong to allow a plaintiff to escape from the discipline of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Litigation Practice
Updated: 01 June 2022; Ref: scu.159931