In the matter of II [2018] JRC 024 (26 January 2018)

In the matter of II [2018] JRC 024 (26 January 2018)

It was inappropriate to strike out the first plaintiff's claim immediately in her absence and in light of a medical letter, but continued non-compliance with clear court orders justified the imposition of directions with sanctions. The plaintiff was given further time, linked to the anticipated psychiatric report, and liberty to apply to vary directions. Sanctions were attached to ensure compliance: failure to provide discovery would result in strike out of the claim; failure to clarify losses or provide discovery for consequential loss would result in strike out of those parts of the claim. Indemnity costs were ordered against the first plaintiff for non-appearance and unjustified...

Citation
[2018] JRC 024
Parties
Plaintiff: First Plaintiff; Defendant: Second Defendant; Defendant: First Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
26 January 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Directions
Outcome
Application to strike out refused at this stage; directions with sanctions issued; indemnity costs ordered against first plaintiff.
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Non Compliance With Court Orders, Discovery Obligations, Adjournment Applications, Sanctions for Procedural Default
Civil Procedure Strike Out Applications Non Compliance With Court Orders Discovery Obligations Adjournment Applications Sanctions for Procedural Default

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

First Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Second Defendant

Defendant

First Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Interlocutory Application for Strike Out and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first plaintiff's claim should be struck out for non-compliance with court orders
  2. 2 Whether an adjournment should be granted due to the first plaintiff's alleged incapacity
  3. 3 What directions and sanctions are appropriate in light of continued non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

It was inappropriate to strike out the first plaintiff's claim immediately in her absence and in light of a medical letter, but continued non-compliance with clear court orders justified the imposition of directions with sanctions. The plaintiff was given further time, linked to the anticipated psychiatric report, and liberty to apply to vary directions. Sanctions were attached to ensure compliance: failure to provide discovery would result in strike out of the claim; failure to clarify losses or provide discovery for consequential loss would result in strike out of those parts of the claim. Indemnity costs were ordered against the first plaintiff for non-appearance and unjustified...

Court Disposition

Application to strike out refused at this stage; directions with sanctions issued; indemnity costs ordered against first plaintiff.

Orders

  • First plaintiff to provide copies of discovery documents by specified dates, failing which the claim will be struck out in its entirety without further order.
  • First plaintiff to identify which losses are claimed against each defendant by specified date, failing which the claim for consequential loss will be struck out.