Piazza -v- Larsen Ltd [2017] JRC 153 (20 September 2017)

Piazza -v- Larsen Ltd [2017] JRC 153 (20 September 2017)

The plaintiffs' six-month inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case did not justify the disproportionate sanction of striking out the claim, as the delay did not cause real prejudice, the case would turn on expert evidence, and the defendants' conduct suggested tactical motives. The appropriate sanction is deprivation of interest for the period of delay.

Citation
[2017] JRC 153
Parties
Plaintiff: Plaintiffs (insured by Aviva); Defendant: First Defendant; Defendant: Second Defendant
Jurisdiction
Jersey
Judgment Date
20 September 2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
application refused
Legal Topics
Strike Out Applications, Want of Prosecution, Delay in Litigation, Case Management, Remedies for Procedural Breach
Civil Procedure Construction Law Strike Out Applications Want of Prosecution Delay in Litigation Case Management Remedies for Procedural Breach

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs (insured by Aviva)

Plaintiff

First Defendant

Defendant

Second Defendant

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Application to Strike Out for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' claim should be struck out for want of prosecution due to delay in issuing a summons for directions
  2. 2 Whether the delay by the plaintiffs was excusable
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for inexcusable delay

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiffs' six-month inexcusable delay in prosecuting the case did not justify the disproportionate sanction of striking out the claim, as the delay did not cause real prejudice, the case would turn on expert evidence, and the defendants' conduct suggested tactical motives. The appropriate sanction is deprivation of interest for the period of delay.

Court Disposition

application refused

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim not struck out for want of prosecution
  • Plaintiffs to be deprived of interest for six months if successful at trial