15 Oct 2019
Strike out summons dismissed because the court found the delay did not amount to inordinate and inexcusable delay constituting abuse of process and the respondent failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to justify striking out; applicants' conduct and attempts to resolve the matter weighed against strike out.
3 Aug 2015
The defendant's strike out application was dismissed because the defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice from the plaintiff's delay and had itself been passive; however the court held that the alleged oral variation of the Instruction to Sub-contractor and the alternative claims under Cap 457 and quantum meruit were substantive bases of claim that must be pleaded in the statement of claim, not in a reply, and accordingly granted leave to file a reply limited to excluding those pleaded variations and alternative claims; consequential costs orders and case management directions were made.
12 May 2015
The court found both parties had effectively shelved their respective claims for prolonged periods (notably 2007–2012), amounting to abuse of process; because both claim and counterclaim were related and both parties contributed to the delay, the proper exercise of discretion was to strike out both the claim and the counterclaim, dismiss the action and discharge the interim injunction, with parties to bear their own costs (nisi order).
13 Feb 2014
The court found the defendant was not responsible for the official receiver's delay, the official receiver had not warehoused the proceedings or abused the process given her legitimate concern about exposing public funds and willingness to proceed if indemnity and prospects were satisfactory, and in all the circumstances it was not just to strike out the third party proceedings; accordingly the appeal to strike out was dismissed and the defendant's cross-appeal on costs was also dismissed, with a costs nisi order for mutual payment and summary assessment directions.
11 Sept 2013
Although the plaintiff's delay was inordinate and inexcusable, there was no evidence of abuse of process or substantial prejudice to the defendants and the defendants' own failure to advance the matter was relevant; accordingly it was not just to strike out and a fair trial remained possible, so the strike out application was dismissed.
8 Dec 2011
The Court held the appeal must be dismissed because striking out is a last resort founded on abuse of process; although there was an inordinate unexplained delay for a two-year period, the evidence did not establish the necessary degree of abuse, 'warehousing' or prejudice to justify depriving the liquidator of a trial, and under CJR principles the court must apply active case management but still reserve striking out for plain and obvious cases.
4 Oct 2010
The plaintiff's unexplained, inordinate delay (over five years) in a case where oral evidence is central permitted the court to infer substantial prejudice by fading witness memories; because the pleading was ambiguous and defendants could not fairly be expected to have preserved or prepared evidence, the proper exercise of discretion was to strike out the claim for want of prosecution.
22 Oct 2009
Delay by itself, even if inordinate and inexcusable, does not justify striking out absent evidence of substantial risk to a fair trial or serious prejudice; where prejudice is not shown and issues are not fact‑sensitive, the court should exercise its discretion by imposing strict case management directions rather than striking out. The Master's strike‑out for failure to plead indemnity/contribution was not appropriate to be upheld without submissions; instead the judge imposed specific deadlines and conditional strike‑out orders to prevent further delay.
22 Apr 2009
Although there was inordinate delay of about seven years, the defendants failed to prove prejudice preventing a fair trial and provided no evidence to contradict the plaintiffs' unchallenged explanation that lack of funds caused the delay and that they now intend to proceed; the Master therefore erred in drawing an inference of abuse of process. The appeal is allowed and the strike out is dismissed.
14 Mar 2008
The court found the four year delay was inordinate and inexcusable but did not establish abuse of process; however the respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient prejudice to a fair trial or other serious prejudice to justify the draconian remedy of striking out. The respondents' application to dismiss/strike out was therefore dismissed.