24 Oct 2024
Because the alleged errors in the summons/charge did not cause actual unfairness to the appellant, the trial judge and this court were entitled to correct them; accordingly the appeal fails and the conviction is upheld.
23 Feb 2023
Although the prosecution failed to comply with statutory and practice timetable for serving expert reports, the court found the explanation inadequate but concluded that no irremediable prejudice to the defendant or unfairness to the trial would result because the experts were not due to be called for some time, the defence has time to consider and, if necessary, obtain their own expert evidence, and any inconvenience can be remedied by a short adjournment and/or costs order; accordingly leave to adduce the four expert reports was granted.
20 May 2015
Leave to appeal was refused because the Court of Final Appeal concluded there was no point of law of sufficient general importance: dismissals for want of prosecution are discretionary and properly subject to the 'plainly wrong' appellate standard; the Court of Appeal correctly applied that standard and was entitled to find that the judge below was plainly wrong in failing to recognise that lengthy inexcusable delay had caused prejudice by depriving the defendant of potentially important witness evidence, creating a substantial risk of no fair trial.
9 Nov 2001
The delay of 22 months was inordinate and inexcusable, but on the facts the delay did not cause real prejudice nor make a fair trial impossible because the key witness was already untraceable before the delay and Defendants took no steps to locate him; therefore the strike out application failed.
13 Mar 2001
The court found the plaintiff's cause of action was time‑barred; there was inordinate and inexcusable post‑writ delay of about nine years; the delay caused prejudice both to the fairness of a trial (witness memory, disappearance of witnesses, lack of contemporaneous documents) and financial prejudice due to deterioration of defendant's position; accordingly the court exercised its discretion and granted the 1st Defendant's application to dismiss the action for want of prosecution.
17 Feb 1998
It is legally permissible after the limitation period has expired to treat post‑writ but pre‑limitation delay as inordinate and to aggregate earlier periods of delay; on the facts, although parts of the plaintiff's delay were inordinate, the defendants had induced the plaintiff to incur further costs and were estopped from relying on some earlier delay, and the Court exercised its discretion to dismiss the appeal and refuse to strike out the claim.