Perry v Wong [1996] EWCA Civ 1031 (25th November, 1996)

Perry v Wong [1996] EWCA Civ 1031 (25th November, 1996)

A request for a hearing date made after the expiry of the six-month period but before the expiry of the 15-month period under Order 17, rule 11 is valid and does not require a prior application for extension of time. The sanction of automatic strike-out only applies if no request is made within 15 months.

Citation
[1996] EWCA Civ 1031
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Robert Perry; Respondent/defendant: Kang Ho Wong; Respondent/plaintiff: Gary Sampson; Appellant/defendant: David Moon; Appellant/plaintiff: John William Jones; Respondent/defendant: Roe Shopfitting Limited
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Courts at St Helens, Warrington and Manchester to Court of Appeal (civil Division)
Outcome
Appeals allowed in Jones v Roe Shopfitting Ltd and Perry v Wong; appeal dismissed in Sampson v Moon.
Legal Topics
County Court Rules, Order 17 Rule 11, Automatic Strike Out, Request for Hearing Date, Extension of Time, Personal Injury Litigation
Civil Procedure County Court Rules Order 17 Rule 11 Automatic Strike Out Request for Hearing Date Extension of Time Personal Injury Litigation

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 2 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert Perry

Appellant/plaintiff

Kang Ho Wong

Respondent/defendant

Gary Sampson

Respondent/plaintiff

David Moon

Appellant/defendant

John William Jones

Appellant/plaintiff

Roe Shopfitting Limited

Respondent/defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From County Courts at St Helens, Warrington and Manchester to Court of Appeal (civil Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a request for a hearing date made after the six-month period but within the 15-month period under Order 17, rule 11 is valid without a prior extension of time.
  2. 2 Whether failure to request a hearing date within six months automatically requires an application for extension before a request within 15 months is effective.

Ratio Decidendi

A request for a hearing date made after the expiry of the six-month period but before the expiry of the 15-month period under Order 17, rule 11 is valid and does not require a prior application for extension of time. The sanction of automatic strike-out only applies if no request is made within 15 months.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed in Jones v Roe Shopfitting Ltd and Perry v Wong; appeal dismissed in Sampson v Moon.

Orders

  • Jones v Roe Shopfitting Ltd: Appeal allowed with costs.
  • Perry v Wong: Appeal allowed with costs.