Hansom & Ors v Makin & Anor

Hansom & Ors v Makin & Anor

The Court of Appeal held that the Master and judge erred in their exercise of discretion by overemphasizing the need for expedition, giving undue weight to insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants, and failing to consider the real detriment to claimants from potential double-discounting if the claims were not allowed to proceed. The balance of circumstances favored lifting the automatic stays, as there was no evidence that a fair trial was impossible and the prejudice to the defendants was limited.

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
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Lift Automatic Stay and Strike Out by Master and High Court Judge
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Relief From Sanctions, Automatic Stay Under CPR 51, Application of CPR 3.9, Negligence of Legal Professionals, Delay in Prosecution of Claims
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Relief From Sanctions Automatic Stay Under CPR 51 Application of CPR 3.9 Negligence of Legal Professionals Delay in Prosecution of Claims

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 7 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

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Refusal to Lift Automatic Stay and Strike Out by Master and High Court Judge

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 claimants' delay justified refusal to lift the stay and strike out the claims
  3. 3 Whether the possibility of a fair trial remains a decisive factor in granting relief from sanctions

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that the Master and judge erred in their exercise of discretion by overemphasizing the need for expedition, giving undue weight to insufficient evidence of prejudice to the defendants, and failing to consider the real detriment to claimants from potential double-discounting if the claims were not allowed to proceed. The balance of circumstances favored lifting the automatic stays, as there was no evidence that a fair trial was impossible and the prejudice to the defendants was limited.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Automatic stays on the four actions lifted on stringent terms as to further pursuit and possible terms as to costs