The claimants renewed their application for permission to appeal from an order granting an application made by the defendant, Talksport Ltd, to exclude certain evidence which the claimants appeared to wish to adduce at the trial of the action. Mr Irvine, a famous racing driver, talked of the defendant’s use of his image for advertising without his permission.
Held: The claimant had deliberately risked exclusion of his evidence by delaying service of it beyond the limits: ‘The considerations which seem to me quite plainly of great significance which were before the judge were the interests of the administration of justice, whether the application for relief had been made promptly, whether the failure to comply was intentional and whether there is a good explanation for the failure. Those are the first four subparagraphs of rule 3.9(1) and it seems to me clear that each of them counts against the claimants.’ Nor was the sanction disproportionate: ‘The claimants’ behaviour runs counter to the ethos which for some time, even before the CPR’s introduction, has governed the court’s approach, that is to say that cards should be placed on the table quite openly and orders intended to achieve that end should be obeyed. To allow a party to flout a court order for a tactical reason is unacceptable.’
Judges:
Peter Gibson LJ
Citations:
[2002] EWCA Civ 95
Links:
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Biguzzi v Rank Leisure Plc CA 26-Jul-1999
The court’s powers under the new CPR to deal with non-compliance with time limits, were wide enough to allow the court to allow re-instatement of an action previously struck out. The court could find alternative ways of dealing with any delay which . .
Cited by:
See Also – Irvine, Tidswell Ltd v Talksport Ltd ChD 13-Mar-2002
The defendants used a distorted image of the claimant, a famous racing driver, to endorse its product. He claimed damages in passing off.
Held: On the facts, the famous racing driver Eddie Irvine had a property right in his goodwill which he . .
See Also – Irvine and others v Talksport Ltd CA 1-Apr-2003
Mr Irvine brought an action in passing off against the defendants who were said to have used his image in its advertising, but without his consent. The claimant appealed against the damages awarded (andpound;2,000) and the defendant appealed against . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Evidence, Civil Procedure Rules
Updated: 23 June 2022; Ref: scu.216709