0370 270 6000

Taylor v Anderson, Court of Appeal

14 November 2002
The issues

Strike out – delay – whether fair Trial possible.

The facts

The Claimant was involved in an RTA in 1990. As the Claimant came over the brow of a hill, he collided head-on with a low-loader that was on his side of the road. The low-loader was overtaking a stationary truck. Both the owner of the truck and the owner of the low-loader were sued. Allegations were made by the Defendants as to the Claimant’s speed. Plans had been drawn up as part of a Police Report with braking distances and skid marks noted. Proceedings were issued in 1994 and were automatically stayed in April 2000, as a result of Civil Procedure Rules Part 51 (Transitional Arrangements). In 2001 application was made by the Defendants for the claim to be struck out. The District Judge struck the claim out on the basis that he was doubtful that the case could proceed to a fair Trial because of the delay. The Claimant appealed.

The decision

1. The question to be answered was whether there was a substantial risk that a fair Trial was impossible. The case should not be struck out unless that answer was unequivocally yes.

2. The Judge’s view that that there was doubt as to whether it was possible to have a fair Trial or that it was unlikely that a fair Trial was possible, was not enough to justify striking out.

3. The evidence before the Judge had to be addressed and in particular, 3 issues:-

(i) Whether the position of the low-loader at the time was the result of the driver’s negligence;

(ii) Whether the position of the truck that was stationary was the result of that truck owner’s negligence;

(iii) Whether there had been contribution on the part of the Claimant by virtue of his speed.

4. Notwithstanding the amount of time that had passed, these were matters that could have been considered by the Court. The Judge would have had the assistance of witness statements taken soon after the accident. It could not be said there was a substantial risk that a fair Trial was impossible.

Appeal allowed.


A striking instance of a refusal to strike out the case of a matter 13 years old!

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