Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Bayer-Rosin (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1792 (19 November 2001)

Asiansky Television Plc & Anor v Bayer-Rosin (A Firm) [2001] EWCA Civ 1792 (19 November 2001)

The Court of Appeal held that while the claimants' conduct of the litigation was unsatisfactory and there was culpable delay, the draconian sanction of striking out the action was disproportionate in the circumstances. The court emphasized the flexible approach under the CPR, the need to consider alternative sanctions, and the fact that a fair trial was still possible. The appeal was allowed and the action was reinstated, subject to appropriate case management directions and possible costs sanctions.

Citation
[2001] EWCA Civ 1792
Parties
Claimant/appellant: ASIANSKY TELEVISION PLC; Claimant/appellant: ASIANSKY PROPERTIES LIMITED; Defendant/respondent: BAYER-ROSIN (A FIRM)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 November 2001
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal
Outcome
Appeal allowed; action reinstated
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Delay in Litigation, Breach of Contract by Solicitors, Negligence, Measure of Damages, Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)
Civil Procedure Professional Negligence Strike Out Applications Delay in Litigation Breach of Contract by Solicitors Negligence Measure of Damages Civil Procedure Rules (cpr)

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ASIANSKY TELEVISION PLC

Claimant/appellant

ASIANSKY PROPERTIES LIMITED

Claimant/appellant

BAYER-ROSIN (A FIRM)

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court (queen's Bench Division) to Court of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the action should be struck out for delay and breach of court orders under CPR 3.4(2)(c)
  2. 2 Whether the claimants' conduct justified the draconian sanction of strike out
  3. 3 Whether alternative sanctions short of strike out were appropriate under the CPR

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while the claimants' conduct of the litigation was unsatisfactory and there was culpable delay, the draconian sanction of striking out the action was disproportionate in the circumstances. The court emphasized the flexible approach under the CPR, the need to consider alternative sanctions, and the fact that a fair trial was still possible. The appeal was allowed and the action was reinstated, subject to appropriate case management directions and possible costs sanctions.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; action reinstated

Orders

  • Action reinstated subject to case management directions
  • Possible costs sanctions or other case management orders to be considered