Hansom & Ors v Makin & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1801 (18 December 2003)

Hansom & Ors v Makin & Anor [2003] EWCA Civ 1801 (18 December 2003)

The Court of Appeal held that the lower courts' exercise of discretion was flawed due to overemphasis on expedition, insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants, and failure to consider the detriment to claimants from double-discounting if the stays were not lifted. The court re-exercised its discretion and determined that the balance of factors tipped in favour of lifting the automatic stays, subject to stringent terms to prevent further delay.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1801
Parties
Appellants: Jonathan Meurig Hansom and Others; First Respondent: E Rex Makin; Second Respondent: Norman Wright
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (high Court)
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Automatic Stay Under CPR 51, Application of CPR 3.9, Negligence by Legal Professionals, Delay in Litigation, Fair Trial Considerations
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Relief From Sanctions Automatic Stay Under CPR 51 Application of CPR 3.9 Negligence by Legal Professionals Delay in Litigation Fair Trial Considerations

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 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jonathan Meurig Hansom and Others

Appellants

E Rex Makin

First Respondent

Norman Wright

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Appeal From Queen's Bench Division (high Court)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should lift the automatic stay imposed under CPR 51 on actions not brought before the court within the specified period
  2. 2 Whether the exercise of discretion by the lower courts in refusing to lift the stay was flawed
  3. 3 Whether the possibility of a fair trial is a decisive factor in granting relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the lower courts' exercise of discretion was flawed due to overemphasis on expedition, insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants, and failure to consider the detriment to claimants from double-discounting if the stays were not lifted. The court re-exercised its discretion and determined that the balance of factors tipped in favour of lifting the automatic stays, subject to stringent terms to prevent further delay.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Automatic stays lifted in all four actions, subject to stringent terms as to further pursuit of the actions and possible terms as to costs.