The plaintiff bought the property in 1982, relying on the defendant’s survey, which later proved incorrect having failed to identify subsidence. The writ was issued in 1984. Delays before the expiry of the limitation period led the defendant to apply to dismiss the claim for inordinate and inexcusable delay.
Held: The plaintiff’s appeal against dismissal failed. Once the claim was issued, the plaintiff was under a duty to proceed with reasonable diligence, and delay after issue, and even within the limitation period could justify dismissal.
[1991] 1 WLR 399
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Birkett v James HL 1977
Exercise of Power to Strike Out
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 . .
Cited by:
Cited – Hopkinson and Others and Birmingham Mid-Shires Building Society v Tupper CA 30-Jan-1997
The plaintiffs appealed from an order striking out their claim for want of prosecution. The defendant’s property had been sold by the mortgagees, and the plaintiffs as assignees of their debt sought to recover the balance outstanding from the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Limitation, Contract
Updated: 22 January 2022; Ref: scu.261927