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 pursuing bank’s judgement claim will cause no prejudice to defendant
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
High Court refuses application to dismiss the plaintiff bank's proceedings for inordinate and inexcusable delay, on grounds that: (a) the delay, while inordinate, was not inexcusable as the bank was pursuing other securities and correspondence continued to pass; and (b) even if the delay were inexcusable, no prejudice arose as the case would be heard on documentary evidence alone.
Application by Second Named Defendant to have Plaintiff’s proceedings struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay – issued in 2012 – sought liberty to enter judgement in 2012 – no further action until service of intention to proceed in 2017 - sought liberty to enter judgement in 2019 against Second Named Defendant only – Plaintiff argues they were pursuing other securities and correspondence was passing between solicitors and no prejudice as this case would proceed by documentary evidence alone – court must look at surrounding factors when assessing balance of justice – delay between 2012 and 2017 inordinate – delay excusable and Second Named Defendant aware that proceedings still extant – no prejudice as case will be heard on documentary evidence – further delay after 2017 neither inordinate nor inexcusable – application refused
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.
