On a request for a strike out the test in every case must be what is just and proportionate; and at para 62, as a postscript, that ‘nothing in this judgment affects the correct approach in a case where an application is made to strike out a statement of case in whole or in part at an early stage.’
and: ‘In my judgment, there can be no doubt that the court does have jurisdiction to strike out a claim or any severable part of a claim of its own volition whether immediately before or during the course of a trial. This is clear from the combined effect of CPR rr 1.4, 3.3 and 3.4 as well as 3PD 1.2, and by reason of its inherent jurisdiction.
However, the occasion to exercise this jurisdiction after the start of the trial is likely to be very rare. The normal course will be for all applications to strike out a claim or part of a claim on the merits to be made under CPR rr 3.4 or 24.2 and determined well in advance of the trial.’
Colman J
[2006] EWHC 2959 (Comm), [2007] 1 All ER (Comm) 975
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 3-Feb-2006
. .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 7-Aug-2006
Claim for duty of bank to reveal extent of its own involvement where it was supporting investments as between its customers. . .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 15-Sep-2006
Application for discovery of documents. . .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland CA 24-Oct-2006
. .
Cited by:
Approved – Fairclough Homes Ltd v Summers SC 27-Jun-2012
The respondent had made a personal injury claim, but had then been discovered to have wildly and dishonestly exaggerated the damages claim. The defendant argued that the court should hand down some condign form of punishment, and appealed against . .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 11-May-2007
. .
See Also – National Westminster Bank Plc v Rabobank Nederland ComC 19-Jul-2007
. .
Cited – Hughes Jarvis Ltd v Searle and Another CA 15-Jan-2019
The claimant and director appealed from orders associated with a finding of contempt of court. The Director, the case having been adjourned overnight during the course of his evidence, and despite warnings to the contrary had sought to communicate . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Banking
Updated: 13 December 2021; Ref: scu.246734