0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

Forgotten your password?

Collins v CPS Fuels Ltd, Court of Appeal, 9 October 2001

16 October 2001
The issues

Whether Second Set of Proceedings should be struck out for abuse following striking out of First Set for Procedural Failures.

The facts

The Claimant was three when in 1994 she was in a car with her Mother and Father, which was hit by a car owed by the Defendant Company. She was injured. In March 1995 Judgment was entered in her favour on liability. She had a badly fractured skull and no settlement could be reached at that stage. There was a sequence of failures to comply with Orders of the Court on the part of her Solicitors between 1996 and 1999. The Solicitors failed to attend the Case Management Conference Listed for August 1999. An Unless Order was made but again there was non-compliance and failure to attend the Second Case Management Conference in September. The Proceedings were struck out by the Judge. Application was made to set aside that Order which was refused by the Judge in January 2000 but no application for permission to Appeal was made.

In March 2000 a Second Set of Proceedings was issued by the Claimant in respect of the same accident and injuries. The Defendants applied to strike out as an abuse and in August 2000 the proceedings were accordingly struck out. The Judge relying on Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar Holdings found that it was an abuse to seek damages in the Second Proceedings where the First had been struck out for an inexcusable delay and an abuse of Court Orders. The Claimant Appealed.

The decision

1. Whether to strike out was a matter for the discretion of the Judge. The role of the Court of Appeal was to consider the exercise of that discretion.

2. In this case the exercise of the Judge’s discretion was faultless. He had considered all the circumstances and found no “special reasons” to let the Second Set of Proceedings proceed. His use of the words “special reasons” was not sanctified by Authority but was an attractive form, which summed up the right approach in these circumstances. The Appeal was dismissed.

Focus on...

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.


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.


Legal updates

Non-payment of insurance premiums during the Coronavirus pandemic

The forced closure of many businesses as a result of the Coronavirus pandemic has had a huge impact on the nation’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Recent reports from the Office for National Statistics state that the economy was 25% smaller in April than it was in February this year.


Legal updates

Reinstatement for property damage losses – when does it apply?

The Court of Appeal has recently considered the correct test for measuring the indemnity for property damage losses and has provided useful guidance on whether an insured needs to intend to reinstate the property to its pre-loss condition.


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