Biguzzi v Rank Leisure plc
Under the Civil Procedure Rules, the courts have a range of sanctions for delay, and striking out a claim is not always appropriate.
Facts
Mr Biguzzi sued Rank Leisure for damages after an incident at one of its premises. His solicitors were guilty of serious delay in progressing the claim. The judge struck out the claim, applying the new Civil Procedure Rules 1998, which had just come into force. Mr Biguzzi appealed.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal restored the claim. Lord Woolf MR said that the Civil Procedure Rules are a new procedural code, and that earlier authorities on delay are generally no longer relevant. The courts now have a much wider range of powers to deal with delay and non compliance, such as ordering costs, restricting the recovery of interest or imposing other sanctions, which may be more appropriate than striking out a claim. The court must consider the overriding objective of dealing with cases justly, and striking out is a draconian sanction to be used only where it is proportionate.
Related cases on civil justice and procedure
- American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd [1975] AC 396
- Anton Piller KG v Manufacturing Processes Ltd [1976] Ch 55
- Arkin v Borchard Lines Ltd [2005] EWCA Civ 655, [2005] 1 WLR 3055
- Barton v Wright Hassall LLP [2018] UKSC 12, [2018] 1 WLR 1119
- Callery v Gray [2002] UKHL 28, [2002] 1 WLR 2000
- Churchill v Merthyr Tydfil County Borough Council [2023] EWCA Civ 1416
- Denton v TH White Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 906, [2014] 1 WLR 3926
- Dunnett v Railtrack plc [2002] EWCA Civ 303, [2002] 1 WLR 2434
Studying english legal system? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
