PRACTICE

Striking out - unreasonable and inexcusable delay - action not to be struck out despite 13-year delay because no substantial risk that fair trial impossible

Taylor v Anderson and another: CA (Lord Justice Chadwick and Sir Denis Henry): 7 November 2002

In 1990 the claimant, driving his car on the brow of a hill, collided with an oncoming lorry driven by the second defendant, who pulled out to pass a stationary vehicle driven by the first defendant.

The claimant suffered appalling injuries and was unable to give evidence.

Proceedings began in 1994, but because of delay by solicitors then acting for the claimant the action was automatically stayed under the transitional provisions in CPR Part 51 in April 1999.

The defendants' application to strike out the action under CPR rule 3.4 was granted in May 2001 by a district judge, who held that because of unreasonable and inexcusable delay there was doubt that a fair trial of the action would be possible.

The claimant appealed.

Simeon Maskrey QC (instructed by Stephens & Son, Chatham) for the claimant.

Laurence West-Knights QC and Simon Wilton (instructed by Vizard Wyeth, Dartford) for the defendants.

Held, allowing the appeal, that for the action to be struck out under CPR rule 3.4 the defendants had to show that there was considerable risk that a fair trial of the action would be impossible; that the judge's conclusions were in law insufficient to justify striking out; that the court thus had to decide the issue for itself; and that, although nearly 13 years had elapsed, the existence of contemporaneous witness statements and police accident reports resulted in the circumstances not being such as to give rise to a substantial risk of a fair trial being impossible.