||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 270 (Jul)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Waller, Latham LJJ and Astill J
||Guy Mansfield QC and Toby Hooper QC (instructed by Trobridges, Plymouth) for the claimant.
||Alan Jeffreys QC and Duncan MacLeod (instructed by Barlow Lyde & Gilbert) for the defendant.
||20 July 2001
County court - Practice - Striking out - Automatic directions - Automatic directions prescribing timetable for action - Automatic strike out sanction for failure to apply for hearing date within prescribed time - Whether action to be struck out automatically - CCR Ord 17, r 11.
The mere fact that composite directions had been given did not mean that the automatic directions regime had been ousted. On the facts of the instant professional negligence case, where the claimant alleged that the negligence of the defendant firm of solicitor's had resulted in his original action being automatically struck out under CCR Ord 17, r 11(9) for failure of comply with the automatic directions regime, the automatic directions regime had not been ousted, and continued to apply, so that the claimant's original action had been automatically struck out.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary