Husband's of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd

JurisdictionEngland & Wales
Date1975
CourtCourt of Appeal (Civil Division)
[COURT OF APPEAL] HUSBAND'S OF MARCHWOOD LTD. v. DRUMMOND WALKER DEVELOPMENTS LTD. 1975 Jan. 31 Russell and Stamp L.JJ. and Walton J.

Practice - Discovery - Failure to comply with order for - Summons to debar defendants from defending - Belated discovery shortly before summons hard - Defendants ordered to make payment into court or be debarred from defending - Whether proper order - R.S.C., Ord. 24, r. 16 (1)

In April 1971 the plaintiffs brought an action in contract against the defendants who alleged breaches of contract by the plaintiffs and sought damages by way of counterclaim. On a summons for directions, in April 1973, Lists of documents were ordered to be served within 28 days. The plaintiffs produced their List in June 1973, but the defendants failed to comply and, in September 1974, were ordered to pay into court the difference between the claim and counterclaim and a further order for discovery within 28 days was made. On October 29, 1974, the plaintiffs issued a summons seeking an order debarring the defendants from defending the action on the ground that they had failed to comply with the order for discovery. Two days before the hearing of the summons the defendants produced discovery. At the hearing it was ordered, pursuant to R.S.C., Ord. 24, r. 16F1, that the defendants pay the balance of the plaintiffs' claim into court or be debarred from defending the action.

On appeal by the defendants: —

Held, allowing the appeal, that the condition requiring payment of the balance of the plaintiffs' claim into court was quite inappropriate as a means of enforcing compliance with an order for discovery; that, since the object of the summons, that the due processes of the action should go forward, had been in fact achieved, the order for payment into court would be set aside (post, pp. 605H–606A).

Per Stamp L.J. R.S.C., Ord. 24, r. 16 (1) is designed to secure compliance with the rules and orders of the court relating to discovery, and not to punish a party for not having complied with them within the time limited for the purpose (post p. 606C).

No cases are referred to in the judgments.

The following case was cited in argument:

Chipchase v. Rosemond [1965] 1 W.L.R. 153; [1965] 1 All E.R. 145.

APPEAL from Judge McLellan sitting as Official Referee.

By writ dated April 2, 1971, the plaintiffs, Husband's of Marchwood Ltd., claimed £1,956 from the defendants, Drummond Walker Developments Ltd., for work done and materials supplied. By their defence and counterclaim, dated May 7, 1971, the defendants alleged breaches of contract by the plaintiffs and counterclaimed amounts totalling £1,584. On June 9, 1971, the plaintiffs served the reply and defence to counterclaim, which denied the alleged breaches of contract, and a request for further and better particulars of the defence and counterclaim. Orders were made requiring the defendants to deliver the particulars requested, on October 8, November 10 and December 14, 1971, the latter order being complied with on February 7, 1972. On April 24, 1973...

To continue reading

Request your trial
29 cases
  • Star News Shops Ltd v Stafford Refrigeration Ltd
    • United Kingdom
    • Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
    • October 30, 1997
    ...a defaulter, eg by requiring the payment of the amount or the balance of the amount claimed into Court (see Husband's of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd [1975] 1 W.L.R. 603; [1975] 2 All E.R. 30, C.A.). An order for discovery which is stated to be "final" is not the same a......
  • Ley Boon Hee v Paling Construction Sdn Bhd
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • January 1, 1990
  • Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P and another and another suit
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • June 3, 2008
    ...(refd) Federal Lands Commissioner v Neo Hong Huat [1998] SGHC 131 (folld) Husband's of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 603 (refd) Hyman, Mackenzie & Partners Inc v Constellation Development Inc [1990] ACWSJ 434439 (distd) Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventr......
  • Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • July 3, 2013
    ...Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police [1982] AC 529 (refd) Husband's of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd [1975] 1 WLR 603 (refd) Hytec Information Systems Ltd v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 1666 (folld) Johnson v Gore Wood & Co [2002] 2 AC 1 (refd) Jokai......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • AN ANALYSIS OF RECENT JUDICIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN SELECTED AREAS OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 1996, December 1996
    • December 1, 1996
    ...a fair trial by making a subsequent judgment in his favour unsafe. Also see Husband’s of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd[1975] 1 WLR 603. 79 [1978] AC 297. Birkett has been applied in Singapore. See Sim Lim Finance Ltd v Highlight Industry Pte Ltd[1987] 1 MLJ 182; Wee Siew ......
  • Case Note
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2014, December 2014
    • December 1, 2014
    ...Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd [2013] 3 SLR 1179 at [45]. 31 See Husband's of Marchwood Ltd v Drummond Walker Developments Ltd[1975] 1 WLR 603 at 605. 32 See Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd[2013] 3 SLR 1179 at [41] and [26], that it may be “disproportionate” to h......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT