Eckman -v- Sidem [2009] JRC 233 (07 December 2009)

Eckman -v- Sidem [2009] JRC 233 (07 December 2009)

The delay between the filing of the second defendant's answer and the request for further particulars was inordinate and largely inexcusable, but did not cause serious prejudice or substantial risk of unfair trial. Dismissal was disproportionate; alternative sanctions were appropriate.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] JRC 233
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiff; First Defendant: Sidem International Limited; Second Defendant: Patrick Michault; Third Defendant: Raymond Sydney Harvey
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
07 December 2009
Procedural Posture
Pauline Action / Appeal From Master's Dismissal for Want of Prosecution and Failure to Issue Summons for Directions
Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal allowed; action reinstated.
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Pauline Action, Delay in Litigation, Summons for Directions, Proportionality of Sanctions, Article 6 ECHR, Prescription, Case Management
Civil Procedure Contract Law Trusts Human Rights Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Pauline Action Delay in Litigation Summons for Directions +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiff

Plaintiff

Sidem International Limited

First Defendant

Patrick Michault

Second Defendant

Raymond Sydney Harvey

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Pauline Action / Appeal From Master's Dismissal for Want of Prosecution and Failure to Issue Summons for Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether inordinate and inexcusable delay justified dismissal for want of prosecution
  2. 2 Whether failure to issue summons for directions under Rule 6/26 warranted dismissal
  3. 3 Whether delay caused serious prejudice or substantial risk of unfair trial

Ratio Decidendi

The delay between the filing of the second defendant's answer and the request for further particulars was inordinate and largely inexcusable, but did not cause serious prejudice or substantial risk of unfair trial. Dismissal was disproportionate; alternative sanctions were appropriate.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's appeal allowed; action reinstated.

Orders

  • Plaintiff to pay second defendant's costs of hearing before Master on indemnity basis.
  • Plaintiff disallowed interest on claim for period of delay.