Beasant v Pavan [1997] JLR 270 (22 October 1997)

Beasant v Pavan [1997] JLR 270 (22 October 1997)

An action may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, meaning it is materially longer than what is legally considered reasonable and no reasonable excuse is provided, unless the defendant acquiesced in or contributed to the delay.

Citation
[1997] JLR 270
Parties
Applicant: Beasant; Respondent: Pavan
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
22 October 1997
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
not available
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Delay
Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Delay

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 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Beasant

Applicant

Pavan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application for Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delay in prosecution was inordinate and inexcusable so as to justify dismissal of the action

Ratio Decidendi

An action may be dismissed for want of prosecution if the delay is inordinate and inexcusable, meaning it is materially longer than what is legally considered reasonable and no reasonable excuse is provided, unless the defendant acquiesced in or contributed to the delay.

Court Disposition

not available