Ministry of Defence v Foxley & Ors

Ministry of Defence v Foxley & Ors

The delays in both sets of proceedings are so serious and prejudicial that a fair trial is no longer possible. The automatic stay under the CPR does not apply due to the ongoing receiverships, but the proceedings must be struck out under the court's inherent jurisdiction and the CPR because the interests of justice and the right to a fair trial have been irretrievably compromised.

Parties
Claimant: The Ministry of Defence; Defendant: Gordon Foxley; Defendant: Paul Foxley; Defendant: Other Foxley family members
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
10 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil and Criminal Enforcement / Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay
Outcome
proceedings struck out (save for final judgments already obtained)
Legal Topics
Confiscation Orders, Delay in Proceedings, Article 6 ECHR, Article 7 ECHR, Freezing Orders, Bankruptcy, Receivership
Criminal Law Civil Procedure Human Rights Law Confiscation Orders Delay in Proceedings Article 6 ECHR Article 7 ECHR Freezing Orders +2 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 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Ministry of Defence

Claimant

Gordon Foxley

Defendant

Paul Foxley

Defendant

Other Foxley family members

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil and Criminal Enforcement / Application to Strike Out Proceedings for Delay

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceedings should be struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay
  2. 2 Whether a fair trial is still possible after long delay
  3. 3 Whether the automatic stay under the CPR applies to these proceedings

Ratio Decidendi

The delays in both sets of proceedings are so serious and prejudicial that a fair trial is no longer possible. The automatic stay under the CPR does not apply due to the ongoing receiverships, but the proceedings must be struck out under the court's inherent jurisdiction and the CPR because the interests of justice and the right to a fair trial have been irretrievably compromised.

Court Disposition

proceedings struck out (save for final judgments already obtained)

Orders

  • Both the 1992 and 1994 proceedings are struck out except where final judgments have already been entered.