further and Better Particulars in UK Law

But also, if after the plaintiff has been guilty of unreasonable delay the defendant so conducts himself as to induce the plaintiff to incur further costs in the reasonable belief that the defendant intends to exercise his right to proceed to trial notwithstanding the plaintiff's delay, he cannot obtain dismissal of the action unless the plaintiff has thereafter been guilty of further unreasonable delay.

There certainly was no further fault on the part of the plaintiff, save possibly in failing to take advantage of the defendants' delay. ultimately, instead of delivering their defence, the defendants applied, with surprising success, for the action to be dismissed for want of prosecution. There was here about as clear a case of waiver or acquiescence on the part of the defendants as it is possible to imagine.

In my judgment, therefore, the law today is that a Court has power to extend the time where an "unless" Order has been made but not been complied with; but that it is a power which should be exercised cautiously and with due regard to the necessity for maintaining the principle that orders are made to be complied with and not to be ignored. Presumably it is a question for the discretion of the Master or the Judge in Chambers whether the necessary relief should be granted or not.

Certainty is only achieved when the vendor is left in no reasonable doubt not only that a claim may be brought but of the particulars of the ground upon which the claim is to be based. Notice in writing is required in order to constitute the record which dispels the need for further argument and creates the certainty.

If A wishes to allege that B, having had a right of rescission has elected to affirm a contract, he should in his pleadings, so it seems to me, expressly allege B's knowledge of the relevant right to rescind, since such knowledge will be an essential fact upon which he relies. In many cases the best particulars that A will be able to give will be to invite the court to infer knowledge from all the circumstances.

Like any election, it must be an unequivocable act done with Kacwledge of the material circumstances. On those authorities, it seems to me that in order to deprive a defendant of his recourse to arbitration a"step in the proceedings" must be one which impliedly affirms the correctness of the proceedings and the willingness of the defendant to go along with a determination by the courts of law instead of arbitration.

If an action is not brought bona fide for the purpose of obtaining relief but for some ulterior or collateral purpose, it may be struck out as an abuse of the process of the Court. The time of the Court should not be wasted on such matters and other litigants should not have to wait till they are disposed of. But for the Court to strike it out on this basis at this stage it must be clear that his is the case.