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?

Langtree Group Plc v Richardson, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2004

18 October 2004
The issues

Unless Order – Failure To Comply With Court Order – Whether Claim Should Be Struck Out

The facts

The Claimant claimed monies due under a lease and a surety. The Defendant was ordered on 19th September 2003 to provide a disclosure list by 1st October 2003 under pain of a striking out provision “without further order”. The disclosure list was sent but failed to comply with CPR Rule 3.5 in that it was not signed. On 6th October a signed list was sent. A Claimant had in the meanwhile requested copies of the listed documents. The action came to Trial in November 2003 and at the Trial the Claimant asked the Judge to rule that the claim was struck out because the unless order had not been complied with. The Trial Judge refused and carried on with the Trial in which Judgment was given in favour of the Defendant.

The Claimant appealed. The Claimant argued that no action had been needed on its part to strike the claim out since the unless order had referred specifically to striking out “without further order”. The Defendant argued that the Claimant should have applied to have the claim struck out.

The decision

The Claimant’s argument that there was no necessity to make a formal application in the light of the terms of the unless order were doubtful. However, because of the way in which the Claimant had acted it was unnecessary to decide that issue. The Claimant had insisted on his entitlement to documents and had allowed the Defendant to incur the cost of preparing for Trial. Moreover as far as any breach of the unless order could be identified there was no prejudice caused to the Claimant as a list had been served and he had been fully entitled to obtain copies of the documents.

The Judge was not wrong to exercise his discretion in the manner that he did.

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