A strike out was sought alleging gross delay and an abuse of process.
Held: The strike out was granted both as to the claim and counter claims.
Hamblen J discussed first the issues surrounding delay: ‘In summary, the authorities provide the following guidance:
(1) There are no hard and fast rules. The court has to make a broad judgment having regard to all relevant circumstances and the justice of the case.
(2) The relevant circumstances may include the length of, explanation for and responsibility for the delay; whether the Defendant has suffered prejudice as a result and if so how it can be compensated for, and whether the delay is such that it is no longer possible to have a fair trial.
(3) A defendant cannot let time go by without taking action so where delay does cause prejudice to him he cannot say that it is entirely the fault of the claimant.
(4) In considering what is the just and proportionate order to make the court should have regard to the alternative sanctions to that of striking out provided by the CPR.’
Hamblen J then said ‘ To commence or to continue proceedings which you have no intention to bring to a conclusion may constitute an abuse of process’
Judges:
Hamblen J
Citations:
[2013] EWHC 4076 (Admlty), [2014] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 606
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Grovit and others v Doctor and others HL 24-Apr-1997
The plaintiff began a defamation action against seven defendants. Each had admitted publication but pleaded justification. The claims against the fourth to seventh defendants were dismissed by consent, and the third had gone into liquidation. The . .
Cited – Habib Bank Limited v Gulzar Haider Jaffer; Habib Bank Limited v Haider Ladhu Jaffer CA 5-Apr-2000
A major litigation action was characterised by persistent delay on behalf of the plaintiffs. They had failed to follow advice given to them by their solicitors regarding the need to make progress. In the circumstances, the delay could only be . .
Cited – Arbuthnot Latham Bank Limited; Nordbanken London Branch v Trafalgar Holdings Limited; Ashton and Ashton CA 16-Dec-1997
The issue was the appropriateness of a Court striking an action out where there has been considerable delay if: (i) the cause of action relied upon by the plaintiff in the proceedings would be statute barred if the action were to be struck out, but . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Transport, Litigation Practice
Updated: 30 November 2022; Ref: scu.519220