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?

Moon v Kent C.C. and another, Court of Appeal

3 December 2001
The issues

Automatic stay – Applications to lift – Substantial delays unsatisfactorily explained.

The facts

The Court below had refused to lift an automatic stay of the Claimants action for damages for malicious prosecution. There had been an application to strike out, which had been successful at first instance but reversed on appeal when directions had been ordered. The directions had not been applied with by either party and on the 25 April 2000 an automatic stay came into force. The Court issued a Notice for a Hearing of Case Management Conference, on the day after the stay had been imposed. At that Conference the High Court Judge had refused to remove the stay. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The Court had a broad discretion to strike out.

2. The Appeal Court would intervene only if the Judge had misdirected himself on the Civil Procedure Rules or on the material put before the Court.

3. The burden on the Claimant to reverse the decision was heavy.

4. There was no misunderstanding as to the Judge’s construction of the Civil Procedure Rules or the material put before him.

5. The Judge had concluded that it was no longer possible to have a fair Trial. To proceed would involve investigation of matters occurring 14 years earlier. There had been substantial delays for which no satisfaction relation had been offered. The burden was on the Claimant’s solicitors making an application to the Judge and the fact that they had relied on misinformation by the Court Officials was no excuse.

6. It was not the case that it was always necessary for a party seeking to uphold a stay or to strike out to prove prejudice or to show that there could not be a fair trial – see Biguzzi in which Lord Woolf had emphasised there would be cases where it was in the interest of justice that a claim be struck out or a stay not to be removed.

Appeal 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