Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Would a judge's decision to make an order under CPR 3.4/3.5 ordering a claimant to file and serve "fully pleaded particulars", but not on the basis of it being an "unless" order and with no reference to striking out, necessarily lead to striking out if the claimant failed to provide said particulars?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Would a judge's decision to make an order under CPR 3.4/3.5 ordering a claimant to file and serve "fully pleaded particulars", but not on the basis of it being an "unless" order and with no reference to striking out, necessarily lead to striking out if the claimant failed to provide said particulars?
    Under the "new" rules I don't think you can assume you would get a second chance. I think if your opponent applied on notice for a strike out and by the time it was heard, there had been no effort to comply with the previous order, there would be a 70%+ chance of an immediate strike out.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Under the "new" rules I don't think you can assume you would get a second chance. I think if your opponent applied on notice for a strike out and by the time it was heard, there had been no effort to comply with the previous order, there would be a 70%+ chance of an immediate strike out.
    Is it okay if I have a second bite of the cherry? I phrased my question a bit vaguely.

    What I should have said was CPR 3.3(4). Basically, you have a claimant who fails to follow pre-action protocols (makes a demand which is rebuffed, then files a statement of claim the following day).

    The claim is quite unspecific, and a defence is filed asking the court to exercise its case management prerogative to strike out based on 3.4(2)(c) (in terms of failure to follow pre-action protocols) and also based on 3.4(2)(a) (no recognisable cause of action in the claimant's statement of claim / particulars) and 3.4(2)(b) (based on a kind of Nomura view that this kind of vague claim is an abuse).

    The court then makes an order under 3.3(4) ordering the claimant to file and serve "fully pleaded particulars", but with no actual "threat" (I'm not sure of the best term) attached about striking out. Would a striking out be automatic if the claimant failed to file and serve said particulars by the specified date?

    Also, would the defendant be able to make an immediate N244 application to strike out, based on the claimant's failure to serve fully pleaded particulars by the specified date, if that indeed occurred?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Is it okay if I have a second bite of the cherry? I phrased my question a bit vaguely.

    What I should have said was CPR 3.3(4). Basically, you have a claimant who fails to follow pre-action protocols (makes a demand which is rebuffed, then files a statement of claim the following day).

    The claim is quite unspecific, and a defence is filed asking the court to exercise its case management prerogative to strike out based on 3.4(2)(c) (in terms of failure to follow pre-action protocols) and also based on 3.4(2)(a) (no recognisable cause of action in the claimant's statement of claim / particulars) and 3.4(2)(b) (based on a kind of Nomura view that this kind of vague claim is an abuse).

    The court then makes an order under 3.3(4) ordering the claimant to file and serve "fully pleaded particulars", but with no actual "threat" (I'm not sure of the best term) attached about striking out. Would a striking out be automatic if the claimant failed to file and serve said particulars by the specified date?
    No

    Also, would the defendant be able to make an immediate N244 application to strike out, based on the claimant's failure to serve fully pleaded particulars by the specified date, if that indeed occurred?
    Yes, and as I indicated in my previous post, if this had not been served by the return date of the application there is a very good chance of an immediate strike out. The old idea of giving everyone two chances has gone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Yes, and as I indicated in my previous post, if this had not been served by the return date of the application there is a very good chance of an immediate strike out. The old idea of giving everyone two chances has gone.
    Many thanks Nulli.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 9, 2013
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.