0370 270 6000

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

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.



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.


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.


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