Placito v Slater & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1863 (19 December 2003)

Placito v Slater & Ors [2003] EWCA Civ 1863 (19 December 2003)

The court will not release a party from an undertaking given as part of a compromise of litigation unless special circumstances are shown; mere solicitor error and absence of prejudice are insufficient. The striking out of the claim for breach of the undertaking is not disproportionate and does not breach Article 6 ECHR.

Citation
[2003] EWCA Civ 1863
Parties
Appellant: Placito; Respondents: Slater & Ors
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
19 December 2003
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Undertakings to Court, Consent Orders, Extension of Time, Abuse of Process, Testamentary Capacity
Civil Procedure Probate Contract Undertakings to Court Consent Orders Extension of Time Abuse of Process Testamentary Capacity

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 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Placito

Appellant

Slater & Ors

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should release a party from an undertaking not to commence proceedings after a specified date
  2. 2 Whether the claimant's failure to commence proceedings within the agreed time limit justified striking out the claim as an abuse of process
  3. 3 Whether the principles under CPR 3.9 and the overriding objective apply to applications for release from undertakings given in compromise of litigation

Ratio Decidendi

The court will not release a party from an undertaking given as part of a compromise of litigation unless special circumstances are shown; mere solicitor error and absence of prejudice are insufficient. The striking out of the claim for breach of the undertaking is not disproportionate and does not breach Article 6 ECHR.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Claim struck out as abuse of process under CPR 3.4(2)(b)
  • No extension of time granted for compliance with undertaking