The respondent had claimed in damages after an alleged personal injury sustained at the premises of the claimant. After several procedural failures, the claim was struck out, but on appeal, it was ordered: ‘The appellant’s appeal is thus dismissed but the case is to proceed with the following directions.’
Held: The court recited the procedural history. The defendant appealed saying that the order should be read to strike out the claim and no further. However, ‘the circuit judge’s approach was so confused and so defective that it is impossible to reach any sensible, and certainly any sound or reliable, conclusion as to the intention or effect of the order that she made.’ There had been repeated delay, but the defendant had not been prejudiced. The claim should proceed on the basis of the balance of the directions given.
Judges:
Lord Justice Peter Gibson Lord Justice Mance
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 1832
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Flaxmann-Binns v Linconshire County Council CA 2004
A claimant who is reduced to a claim which would perforce be on a percentage basis for loss of chance against her legal advisers is not only suffering a real loss in the sense of being caused further delay and expense, but is also suffering a real . .
Cited – Hansom and others v E Rex Makin and Wright CA 18-Dec-2003
The court considered a strike out application.
Held: Although there might be many cases where the possibility or otherwise of a fair trial is highly important to the exercise of discretion under CPR 3.9. it does not follow that where a fair . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Personal Injury
Updated: 05 November 2022; Ref: scu.222652