Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD WOOLF, MR |
| Judgment Date | 16 December 1997 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1997] EWCA Civ J1216-15 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Docket Number | QBEN1 97/0128/E |
| Date | 16 December 1997 |
-
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
View this document and try vLex for 7 days - TRY VLEX
- This document is available in original version only for vLex customers
251 cases
-
Sivanandan v Enfield London Borough Council
...the need to allow its own limited resources to other cases. The courts should now follow the guidance given by this court in the Arbuthnot Latham case [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1426, 1436–1437: "The question whether a fresh action can be commenced will then be a matter for the discretion of the cour......
- Heng Weng Chin and Others; Public Bank Bhd
-
Geo-Minerals GT Ltd v Geo-Minerals (Holdings) Ltd
...the desire to proceed to trial. 64 Rouse and CDs rely on the principles set out in Grovit v Doctor [1997] 1 WLR 640 and Arbuthnot Latham Bank v Trafalgar Holdings [1998] 1 WLR 1426 as applied recently in Asturion Foundation v Alibrahim [2020] 1 WLR 1627 and Alfozan v Quastel Midgen [202......
- MARA Holdings Sdn Bhd; Transcom Rand (M) Sdn Bhd
Request a trial to view additional results
3 books & journal articles
-
Civil Procedure
...The Court of Appeal held at 16—17 (adopting the words of Lord Woolf MR in Arbuthnot Latham Bank Ltd v Trafalgar Holdings Ltd[1998] 2 All ER 181 at 187) that the test for such applications was: “(1) An action should only be struck out or dismissed for want of prosecution (a) where the plaint......
-
PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE COURT’S DISCRETION TO EXTEND TIME
...same effect. 45 [1995] 1 WLR 1254. 46 See above. 47 [1995] 1 WLR 1254, at 1259. Mann LJ agreed. 48 [1996] TLR 436. 49 Ibid, at 436. 50 [1998] 2 All ER 181. 51 [1996] TLR 698. 52 The application was made on October 30, 1996. The trial had been set for a date in November (the actual day is no......
-
AUTOMATIC DISCONTINUANCE UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 2 — FIRST DORMANT, THEN DEAD…
...make reference to counterclaim situations. (See Annex A herein for the full text of Order 21 Rules 4 and 5.) 4 [1997] 2 All ER 417. 5 [1998] 2 All ER 181. 6 Contrast the approach in South Australia. The rules in South Australia (Rule 10.06 of the Supreme Court Rules 1987) address the proble......