McGorrin v Pascoe [2002] JCA 113 (07 June 2002)

McGorrin v Pascoe [2002] JCA 113 (07 June 2002)

The actions were dismissed because there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Plaintiff or his lawyers, causing substantial risk that a fair trial was not possible and serious prejudice to the Defendant, especially given the death of the Defendant and the age of the claims. The Royal Court erred in not applying the established principles for striking out for want of prosecution.

Citation
[2002] JCA 113
Parties
Plaintiff/respondent: Robert McGorrin; Defendant/appellant: Michael Barron Pascoe
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment Dismissing Defendant's Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Actions
Outcome
Appeal allowed; actions dismissed.
Legal Topics
Striking Out Actions, Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Discretion to Dismiss, Limitation Periods
Civil Procedure Striking Out Actions Want of Prosecution Delay in Litigation Discretion to Dismiss Limitation Periods

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Robert McGorrin

Plaintiff/respondent

Michael Barron Pascoe

Defendant/appellant

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Appeal From Royal Court Judgment Dismissing Defendant's Appeal Against Refusal to Strike Out Actions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the actions should be dismissed for inordinate and inexcusable delay under Rule 6/20 of the Royal Court Rules 1992
  2. 2 Whether the delay prejudiced the possibility of a fair trial
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances justified allowing the actions to proceed

Ratio Decidendi

The actions were dismissed because there was inordinate and inexcusable delay by the Plaintiff or his lawyers, causing substantial risk that a fair trial was not possible and serious prejudice to the Defendant, especially given the death of the Defendant and the age of the claims. The Royal Court erred in not applying the established principles for striking out for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; actions dismissed.

Orders

  • Both actions are dismissed.