Khela v Pone and Norwest Holst Limited: CA 21 May 1997

The claimant sught to re-instate his personal injury action. It had been struck out under the automatic directions.
Held: The claimant had not satsified the requirement to provide a sufficient reason to make his delay excusable.


[1997] EWCA Civ 1742


England and Wales


CitedRastin v British Steel Plc, Todd v Evans, Adams v Geest Plc CA 18-Feb-1994
An action which had been automatically struck out, may be re-instated if there had been good cause for the delay. ‘The proper approach to the exercise of any judicial discretion must be governed by the legal context in which the discretion arises.’ . .
CitedBannister 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Personal Injury, Litigation Practice

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.142138