Greig Middleton & Company Ltd v Denderowicz (No 2)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 04 July 1997 |
| Date | 04 July 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Saville, Lord Justice Brooke and Lord Justice Waller
Arbitration - automatic referral in action for less than £3,000
Where there was an action for a sum less than £3,000, referral to arbitration by a district judge was automatic without the need for an order to that effect.
The Court of Appeal so stated in a reserved judgment when allowing an appeal by Mr Napthali Denderowicz against a decision of Judge Cartlidge at Gateshead County Court on March 14, 1996, upholding the ruling of Deputy District Judge Dodds on February 1, 1995 that the plaintiffs' action for a money debt owed had not automatically been struck out on the ground that they had applied for an extension of time before the guillotine date.
Mr Mark James for the company; Mr Denderowicz in person.
LORD JUSTICE SAVILLE, giving the judgment of the court, said that the appeal was resisted on two grounds.
First, it was argued that Mr Denderowicz's part admission in Form N9B (which was to be treated as the defence for the purposes of calculating the trigger date: see Bannister v SGB plcTLR (The Times May 2, 1997)) meant that the action fell outside the provisions of Order 17, rule 11 since rule 11(1)(o) excepted "an action to which Order 9, rule 3(6) applied (admission of part of plaintiff's claim)".
In its context subrule (6) dealt with a case where the plaintiff was not prepared to accept an admitted sum in full satisfaction of his claim.
In the present case, the defendant sent a cheque to the plaintiffs for the amount he admitted was due shortly after the proceedings began. They accepted it as payment but failed to notify the proper court officer that the amount was not accepted as satisfying the claim.
In those circumstances, their Lordships found that the proceedings did not become an action to which Order 9, rule 3(6) applied for the simple reason that one of the two conditions for the application of the subrule was not fulfilled: see Greig Middleton & Co Ltd v Denderowicz (No 1)TLR (The Times July 28, 1997).
The second ground for resisting the appeal...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Greig Middleton & Company Ltd v Denderowicz
...The Court of Appeal so stated when delivering guidance after its decision in Greig Middleton & Co v Denderowicz (No 2)TLR (The Times July 28, 1997). LORD JUSTICE SAVILLE, giving the judgment of the court, said that in Note 59/4/4 of The Supreme Court Practice 1997 it was said correctly that......
-
Figgett v Davies
...v SGB plcTLRUNK (The Times May 2, 1997; [1997] TLR 234; [1977] 4 All ER 129) or Greig Middleton and Co Ltd v DenderowitzTLRUNK (The Times July 28, 1997; [1997] TLR 421; [1997] 4 All ER 181). The question was whether, if in the county court a district judge struck out a defence in N9 form as......
-
James William Thompson (Plaintiff/Applicant) v Donovan Developments Ltd and Another
...which contained the whole of the first two sentences of the passage I have quoted and a summary of the third was published in The Times on 28 July 1997, and the whole of the revised version of the Bannister judgment was published in the PIQR series of specialist reports in late July or earl......
-
Fishing for the smoking gun: the need for British courts to grant American style extraterritorial discovery requests in U.S. industry-wide tort actions.
...INT'L & COMP. L. 199, 214 (citing Barry Meier, Minnesota Official Invites Congressional Scrutiny of Tobacco Industry Files, N.Y. TIMES, July 28, 1997, at A10). At a symposium on the Florida tobacco litigation, one attorney agreed that the tobacco companies sent documents to England beca......