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.
Refusal of stay on judgment in default in breast implant case despite failure to particularise claim
|
or click here to request site subscription to search and view all judgments |
The Court of Appeal, in a claim concerning an allegedly defective breast implant, has refused the defendant's application for a stay on an order of the High Court, which required the defendant to deliver its defence within six weeks or face a default judgment in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant had sought to delay the delivery of its defence, arguing that the plaintiff's claim remained insufficiently particularised, preventing a meaningful defence. However, the court found that the defendant had ample opportunity to seek further particulars and had previously indicated it could deliver a defence. The court emphasised the need for the case to proceed to trial without further delay and concluded that the defendant's appeal was weak and the application for a stay was largely tactical, resulting in its dismissal.
Court of Appeal, stay application, default judgment, breast implant rupture, Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004, Liability for Defective Products Act 1991, res ipsa loquitur (the thing speaks for itself), case management, interlocutory order, tactical litigation, discovery, pleading obligations, defective product, medical evidence, multinational corporation, procedural delay.
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.
