References: [1978] 1 WLR 1170, [1979] 1 All ER 175
Coram: Megarry V-C
A claim was made for specific performance of an oral agreement to sell shares.
Held: The plaintiff had failed to show that if he issued another writ for the same relief, it would be not be defeated by the doctrine of laches. Payment of the purchase price is neither here nor there if the contract against which it is said to have been paid was in dispute. A plea of laches is available to a person against whom it is alleged that he holds the disputed asset as a bare trustee under an uncompleted contract: ‘In applying Birkett v James [1978] AC 297 to cases that are the subject to laches rather than any fixed period of limitation, I think that it is for the plaintiff to demonstrate the futility of striking out the earlier action; and to do this he must at least show that in the second action there is a prima facie case for his being able to overcome the difficulties resulting from the doctrine of laches. In this case the plaintiff has wholly failed to persuade me of this. Certainly the plaintiff has been very far from showing himself to be ‘ready, desirous, prompt and eager.’ The court therefore considered that ‘ it would be futile to dismiss the first action for want of prosecution, for although the defendant would still be exposed to the claims in the second action, those claims face greater difficulties than did the claims in the first action. In other words, the defendant is better off in facing only the second action and not having to meet the first. ‘
This case cites:
- Cited – Birkett -v- James HL ([1978] AC 297, [1977] 2 All ER 801, [1977] 3 WLR 38)
The court has an inherent power to strike out an action for want of prosecution, and the House set down the conditions for its exercise. The power is discretionary and exercisable only where (a) there has been inordinate and inexcusable delay and . .
This case is cited by:
- Cited – Inglorest Investments Ltd -v- Robert Campbell & Another CA ([2004] EWCA Civ 408, Bailii)
The appellants appealed an order that property be part of the estate of the deceased. There had been an agreement to assign the reversion of the lease to the claimant. That was not completed, but he later acquired the freehold reversion. No written . .
