Mere delay is not enough to justify striking out a claim under CPR 3.4(2)(b). The delay has to be such as to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings. Even though a trial would not take place until six years after the events giving rise to the claim and one of the defendants’ main witnesses could not now be traced, the judge was not satisfied that the defendants were so prejudiced in their ability to call cogent evidence that a fair trial was impossible (Robson v Travelscope Holidays Ltd).
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
Strike out of claim for delay
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
PHD, a division of The Fuel Logistics Group (Pty) Ltd