0370 270 6000

Reliance National Insurance Company v Ropner Insurance Services Ltd

1 February 2001
The issues

Automatic stay – meaning of coming before a Judge

The facts

On 9th March 2000 the Claimant’s solicitors wrote to the Defendant’s solicitors enclosing a draft application and draft consent order, both of which sought CMC. Letter made it clear that the Claimant’s solicitors were seeking to avoid an automatic stay. The Defendants did not agree to the proposed directions.
On 19th April the Claimant’s solicitors faxed to the Court a letter enclosing draft proposed letter to the effect that a stay would be inappropriate (as recommended by a note from the Admiralty and Commercial Court Registry prepared in March 2000 but making it clear that the draft proposed letter was not agreed by the Defendants. The letter asked that the draft be placed before a Judge with the request that either directions be made in the terms proposed or that there should be a CMC. The letter came before Morrison LJ who endorsed the facts with the words automatic stay to apply the Claimants have not taken sufficient steps to progress a relatively stale claim.

The decision

The mere writing of a letter to the Court even it was brought to the Judge’s attention and even if he responded to it did not mean that proceedings had come before the Court on paper. Such a letter was not a notice of application.

Appeal dismissed.

Focus on...

Legal updates

Court of Appeal confirms exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies in Canadian pipeline dispute

On 10 June 2022 the Court of Appeal upheld an anti-suit injunction granted in favour of insurers by Mr Justice Jacobs in September 2021 restraining proceedings from being brought in Canada and enforcing the exclusive English jurisdiction clause in excess liability policies.

View

Blogs

Payment Fraud landscape shaped by technology in 2021

Payment systems across Europe are under increased pressure to mitigate fraud risks and defend against persistent attacks from enablers using ever more sophisticated and malicious viruses and malware.

View

Legal updates

Gosden and another v Halliwell Landau and another [2021] EWHC 159 (Comm)

This claim addressed the question, of when the date for assessment of damages in cases of negligence should be determined and shows that when appropriate the Courts will depart from the default position.

View

Legal updates

Assessing the scope of employers liability – Chell v Tarmac

These were the opening remarks of Mr Justice Martin Spencer when handing down his Judgment in the recent case of Andrew Chell v Tarmac Cement and Lime Limited [2020] EWHC 2613, the latest in a series of appeals dealing with the scope of vicarious liability.

View

The content on this page is provided for the purposes of general interest and information. It contains only brief summaries of aspects of the subject matter and does not provide comprehensive statements of the law. It does not constitute legal advice and does not provide a substitute for it.

Mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up