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 oversights give in applying discretions. An oversight by a practitioner cannot, by its very nature, be ordinarily excusable.
Sir Thomas Bingham MR said: ‘I repeat, and I hope that it is clearly understood, that it is a necessary pre-condition that an applicant should be able to show that the action has been conducted with reasonable diligence and the question as to whether the failure can be excusable only arises if that condition is overcome.’
Simon Brown LJ, Sir Thomas Bingham MR
[1994] PIQR 377
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Dowse v Kappell CA 12-Dec-1996
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 . .
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 – Meon Valley Engineering Limited v Reinforced Plastic Products Limited CA 19-Feb-1997
. .
Allowed for – 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 – Burton Mason and Wilson (a Firm) v Riley and Riley CA 21-Aug-1997
. .
These lists may be incomplete.
Updated: 09 June 2021; Ref: scu.196534 br>