Ashton & Another v Securum Finance Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 197 (21 June 2000)

Ashton & Another v Securum Finance Ltd [2000] EWCA Civ 197 (21 June 2000)

The court held that, following the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules and the change in litigation culture, it is no longer open to a litigant whose action has been struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay to rely on the principle that a second action commenced within the limitation period will not be struck out save in exceptional cases. The court must consider whether allowing the second action is a just use of court resources, and a special reason must be identified to justify a second action proceeding after the first was struck out for abuse. The judge below failed to give weight to the public interest in the use of court time and applied the wrong approach; the...

Citation
[2000] EWCA Civ 197
Parties
Claimant: Securum Finance Limited; Defendant: Mr Peter Ashton; Defendant: Mrs Pauline Ashton
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
21 June 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Limitation Periods, Mortgage Enforcement, Guarantee Liability, Strike Out Applications
Civil Procedure Banking Law Property Law Abuse of Process Limitation Periods Mortgage Enforcement Guarantee Liability Strike Out Applications

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Securum Finance Limited

Claimant

Mr Peter Ashton

Defendant

Mrs Pauline Ashton

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Proceedings as Abuse of Process

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the present proceedings are an abuse of process following earlier struck out proceedings
  2. 2 Whether the claim under the legal charge is barred by limitation
  3. 3 Whether the liabilities under the guarantee are secured by the legal charge

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that, following the introduction of the Civil Procedure Rules and the change in litigation culture, it is no longer open to a litigant whose action has been struck out for inordinate and inexcusable delay to rely on the principle that a second action commenced within the limitation period will not be struck out save in exceptional cases. The court must consider whether allowing the second action is a just use of court resources, and a special reason must be identified to justify a second action proceeding after the first was struck out for abuse. The judge below failed to give weight to the public interest in the use of court time and applied the wrong approach; the...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The order refusing to strike out the proceedings is set aside
  • The proceedings are struck out as an abuse of process