Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel. Click here to request a subscription.
Trusted by the judiciary, government lawyers, prosecutors, and many leading counsel.
Click here to request a subscription.
Delay in prosecution does not justify dismissal of action due to lack of demonstrated prejudice
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
Court of Appeal overturns a High Court decision to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, finding that the respondents failed to establish they were prejudiced by the appellants' delay. The case centered on whether the respondents had been prevented from recovering costs and expenses under indemnities due to the appellants' delay, which coincided with a Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA). The Court of Appeal concluded that the respondents had not been materially affected by the delay, as they had already recovered a significant sum under the PIA, and the alleged prejudice was unrelated to the delay in question.
Court of Appeal, High Court, action dismissal, want of prosecution, delay, prejudice, Personal Insolvency Arrangement (PIA), indemnities, recovery of costs, specific performance, settlement agreement, Civil Liability Act 1961, equitable execution, default judgment, secured creditor, indemnity, contribution, fair trial, without prejudice discussions, standstill agreement, discovery process, acquiescence.
Note: This is intended to be a fair and accurate report of a decision made public by a court of law. Any errors should be notified to the editor and will be dealt with accordingly.
