Cockeril v Tambrands Ltd & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 882 (21 May 1998)

Cockeril v Tambrands Ltd & Ors [1998] EWCA Civ 882 (21 May 1998)

Ouster of automatic directions is limited to situations expressly identified in Bannister; applications for manual directions or declarations of strike out do not automatically oust directions unless inconsistent with their continuance. Invalid delivery of defence during a stay does not trigger automatic directions unless validated by court order or redelivery. Implied requests for hearing date are not broadly inferred beyond applications for extension of time.

Citation
[1998] EWCA Civ 882
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Susan Joy Cockerill; Defendant/appellant: Tambrands Limited; First Plaintiff/appellant: Linda Elizabeth Jackson; Plaintiff: Ivan John Oliver; Plaintiff: Mark John Oliver; Plaintiff: Keith Daniel Jackson; Defendant/respondent: Gary Pinchbeck; Defendant/respondent: Adam Cavanagh; Defendant/respondent: Northern Pump Distributors (A Firm); Plaintiff/respondent: Prolaw Limited; Defendant/appellant: Nigel Adams (Trading as Nigel Adams & Co)
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 May 1998
Procedural Posture
Appeals and Applications Under CCR Order 17 Rule 11 / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; matters remitted for consideration of reinstatement.
Legal Topics
Automatic Directions, Ouster of Directions, Strike Out, Reinstatement, Estoppel, Implied Request for Hearing Date
Civil Procedure Personal Injury Contract Law Automatic Directions Ouster of Directions Strike Out Reinstatement Estoppel +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Susan Joy Cockerill

Plaintiff/respondent

Tambrands Limited

Defendant/appellant

Linda Elizabeth Jackson

First Plaintiff/appellant

Ivan John Oliver

Plaintiff

Mark John Oliver

Plaintiff

Keith Daniel Jackson

Plaintiff

Gary Pinchbeck

Defendant/respondent

Adam Cavanagh

Defendant/respondent

Northern Pump Distributors (A Firm)

Defendant/respondent

Prolaw Limited

Plaintiff/respondent

Nigel Adams (Trading as Nigel Adams & Co)

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeals and Applications Under CCR Order 17 Rule 11 / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applications or events oust automatic directions under CCR Order 17 Rule 11
  2. 2 Effect of stays and invalid delivery of defence on automatic directions
  3. 3 Whether applications for declaration of strike out oust automatic directions

Ratio Decidendi

Ouster of automatic directions is limited to situations expressly identified in Bannister; applications for manual directions or declarations of strike out do not automatically oust directions unless inconsistent with their continuance. Invalid delivery of defence during a stay does not trigger automatic directions unless validated by court order or redelivery. Implied requests for hearing date are not broadly inferred beyond applications for extension of time.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; matters remitted for consideration of reinstatement.

Orders

  • Case 1: Appeal allowed; order nisi against legal aid fund with nil contribution.
  • Case 2: Appeal allowed with costs; legal aid taxation.