Braithwaite Sons Ltd v Anley Maritime Agencies Ltd
| Jurisdiction | Northern Ireland |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1990 |
| Date | 01 January 1990 |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Northern Ireland) |
Delay -Inherent jurisdiction - Writ issued immediately prior to expiry of limitation period - Statement of claim issued 2.5 years after issue of writ -Whether inherent power available and exercisable where conditions in Rules for dismissal not satisfied - Whether delay since issue of writ prejudicial - Rules of the Supreme Court (Northern Ireland), O. 3, r. 6, O. 19, r. 1.
A contract was made in April, 1981, whereby the plaintiff agreed with the defendant that the defendant would arrange the carriage of granite and thereafter transfer it to specified consignees. The plaintiff claimed that it was agreed orally that the defendant was only premitted to transfer the possession of the granite to the consignees after the consignees had made payment for it and had paid the freight charges and that, in breach of this term, the defendant had transferred possession to a company without having secured these payments. In January and February, 1982, the plaintiff wrote to the defendants claiming damages for conversion and breach of contract and in January and March, 1982, the defendants rejected the claim. No further step was taken by the plaintiff until the issue of a writ of summons on 31 March, 1987, shortly before the statutory limitation period expired. A statement of claim was served on 13 December, 1989. The defendant issued a summons by which it was sought to have the action dismissed for want of prosecution and this was dismissed. The defendant appealed. Held, allowing the appeal and dismissing the action, that, 1, it was established that a statement of claim served outside the time prescribed by the Rules of the Supreme Court was not invalid, so the defendant could not rely on Order 19, rule 1 of the Rules which permitted a defendant to apply for dismissal of an action where the plaintiff had failed to serve a statement of claim. 2. Since the statement of claim had been validly served in December, 1989, albeit out of time, the defendant was not able to rely on Order 3, rule 6(2) which permitted a defendant to apply to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ewing (Terence Patrick) v Times Newspapers Ltd
...in the administration of justice” [p. 33]. I refer also to the reflections of Carswell J in Braithwaite -v- Anley Maritime Agencies [1990] NI 63, at pp. 69-70 especially, in passages which include a tribute to Sir I. H. Jacob as “one of the foremost authorities on matters of procedure”. [12......
-
ABM Construction v Habbingley Ltd
...560 approved - G McG v DW (No 2) (Joinder of Attorney General) [2000] 4 IR 1 applied - Braithwaite Sons Ltd Anley Maritime Agencies Ltd [1990] NI 63 and R v Bothwell [2006] NICA 35, [2007] NI 58 distinguished - Companies Act 1963 (No 33), s 390 - Rules of the Superior Courts 1986 (SI 15/198......
-
Ferran (Patrick) v Chief Constable of the Police Service of Northern Ireland
...of, albeit within the limitation period. No reason is offered for this delay. In Braithwaite and Sons Ltd v Anley Maritime Limited [1990] NI 63 Carswell J, as he then was, stated that time elapsed within the limitation period could not itself constitute inordinate delay but delay before the......
-
Flynn v The Department of Environment for Northern Ireland & Others
...to do so falls outside the terms of Order 3 Rule 6(2). These doubts were resolved in Braithwaite & Sons 5 Ltd v Anly Maritime Agencies Ltd 1990 NI 63 when Carswell J considered the issue in detail and concluded at page 70 - “I consider that the arguments presented on behalf of the defendant......