Woodhouse v Consignia Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 275 (7th March, 2002)

Woodhouse v Consignia Plc [2002] EWCA Civ 275 (7th March, 2002)

The Court of Appeal held that applications to lift an automatic stay imposed under CPR Part 51 must be determined by reference to CPR 3.9, requiring consideration of all relevant circumstances and the listed factors. The lower courts erred by focusing solely on delay or treating a second application as determinative without a proper balancing exercise. The right of access to the court and proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR Article 6 are engaged. On the facts, the claimants should not be barred from proceeding due to procedural errors by their legal representatives, and the stays should be lifted.

Citation
[2002] EWCA Civ 275
Parties
Claimant/appellant: Tracey Woodhouse (Widow and Administratrix of the estate of Mark Woodhouse deceased); Defendant/respondent: Consignia plc; Claimant/appellant: Martin Steliou; Defendant/respondent: Ms Compton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeals allowed; orders of lower courts set aside; stays lifted; matters remitted for further directions.
Legal Topics
Automatic Stay, Relief From Sanctions, Case Management, Human Rights Act 1998, CPR 3.9, Access to Justice
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Employment Law Automatic Stay Relief From Sanctions Case Management Human Rights Act 1998 CPR 3.9 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tracey Woodhouse (Widow and Administratrix of the estate of Mark Woodhouse deceased)

Claimant/appellant

Consignia plc

Defendant/respondent

Martin Steliou

Claimant/appellant

Ms Compton

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Court to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 What principles govern the removal of an automatic stay imposed under CPR Part 51 and its Practice Direction?
  2. 2 Is the test for lifting an automatic stay the same as for striking out for want of prosecution?
  3. 3 How should CPR 3.9 be applied in applications to lift an automatic stay?

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that applications to lift an automatic stay imposed under CPR Part 51 must be determined by reference to CPR 3.9, requiring consideration of all relevant circumstances and the listed factors. The lower courts erred by focusing solely on delay or treating a second application as determinative without a proper balancing exercise. The right of access to the court and proportionality under the Human Rights Act 1998 and ECHR Article 6 are engaged. On the facts, the claimants should not be barred from proceeding due to procedural errors by their legal representatives, and the stays should be lifted.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; orders of lower courts set aside; stays lifted; matters remitted for further directions.

Orders

  • In Woodhouse: Permission to file and serve amended particulars of claim; claim transferred to Nottingham County Court; listed for case management conference; claimant to pay defendant's costs of application in Croydon County Court on 4 September (set off against costs to be paid by defendant); defendant to pay...
  • In Steliou: Appeal allowed; orders of Judge Thompson QC (27 April 2001) and District Judge Fuller (19 January 2001) set aside; automatic stay lifted; matter remitted to Basingstoke County Court for directions; defendant to pay costs of appeal and application, subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.