Mid Bedfordshire District Council v R G Meats Wholesale Ltd (Defendants/Applicants)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE MILLETT,LORD JUSTICE BROOKE |
| Judgment Date | 01 July 1998 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1998] EWCA Civ J0701-17 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 01 July 1998 |
| Docket Number | LTA 98/5851/2 |
[1998] EWCA Civ J0701-17
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LUTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE COOKE)
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2
Lord Justice Millett
Lord Justice Brooke
LTA 98/5851/2
MR D HOLWILL (Instructed by Messrs Heald Nickinson, Milton Keynes, MK9 2AH) appeared on behalf of the Applicants.
The Respondents did not attend and was not represented.
I will ask Lord Justice Brooke to give the first judgment.
This is a renewed application by the defendants for leave to appeal from an order of Judge Cooke in the Luton County Court on 13 March 1998, when he directed that the plaintiff's claim, which had been automatically struck out pursuant to CCR Order 17 rule 11, be reinstated.
The plaintiffs are claiming nearly £35,000 for inspection fees in respect of slaughterhouse inspections. The validity of their claim depended on the resolution of a contested question of European Union law. After the defence was delivered in June 1994, the parties agreed that the action should not proceed until this question had been decided by Judge Raymond Jack QC in similar proceedings in the Bristol Mercantile Court involving Woodspring District Council. The court made an order that the action should be adjourned generally. Once the judgment in the Woodspring case was given in a manner favourable to the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs in this action were not prepared to agree to any further adjournment, and on 16 February 1995 the Luton County Court of its own motion directed that the automatic directions commenced from that date.
The reply was served on 13 March 1995, and apart from a rather curious query by the plaintiffs' solicitors as to whether the court had received a response to the reply, on which the judge rightly held that nothing turned, nothing then happened in the action and the guillotine date came and went in May 1996.
On 21 May 1996 the European Court of Justice heard argument in the Woodspring case, and it delivered judgment, which was again favourable to the plaintiffs, on 15 April 1997. On 14 August 1997 the plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to the defendants' solicitors requesting payment of the money claimed. After some inter partes correspondence about quantum, the plaintiffs' solicitors told the court on 31 December 1997 that they wished the action to proceed to trial. The court of its own motion suggested that the parties should attend before the circuit judge for directions in view of the fact that the automatic directions timetable had started on 16 February 1995. Both parties' solicitors swore affidavits in advance of the hearing before Judge Cooke on 13 March 1998.
In his careful judgment the judge set out the history of the matter. He said that he understood that the defence was no longer tenable in view of the European Court of Justice's decision, although the defendants wished to seek leave to amend to raise a number of issues of quantum. He said it was plain that the issues raised on the pleadings were simply issues of law and that it was reasonable to assume that the parties would have dispensed with discovery or the court would have ordered no discovery. He said that there was an automatic strike-out in May 1996 and then considered whether the action should be reinstated. He directed himself correctly on the relevant principles. He then said:
"However, one has to bear in mind, I think, two things. One is that this is not simply a requirement for complying with the terms of a ritual dance. It is something that is real and relates to real cases; and I emphasise again the words 'having regard to the particular features of the case' —which feature both in Bannister and in Rastin.
I need to remind myself of one or two more facts before coming to my decision. Now the affidavit of the Council's Officer, though it does not state the matter in the clearest of terms, does say this —and I think one can glean from it what happened —at paragraph 8:
'Without receiving any response from the court of the defendant's solicitors, the plaintiff continued to receive briefing notices from the Association of District Councils, an example being in a letter dated 19th June 1996, which refers specifically to the European Hearing of 21st May 1996. It is my belief since the issuing of the summons the action has been prosecuted with reasonable diligence, including the adjournment to allow issues in other similar cases to be decided.'
In paragraph 10:
'The circular from the Local Government Association dated 29th May 1997; the information was finally received by the plaintiffs, the outcome of the European decision. It is my belief that such information resolved any issues outstanding in these proceedings. Once the judgment had been studied and the amount of debt calculated, the letter dated 14th August 1997 was sent to the defendant's solicitor, and from then-on-in the matter was revived….'
(though it has to be said not particularly quickly).
The circular from the Association of District Councils, 19th June 1996 —as I say, the specimen of the kind of thing that was going round was to the effect that Local Authorities were continuing to await the outcome of the case (the Woodspring case) and that ruling from the Advocate General was expected shortly. The letter of the 18th January 1996...
To continue reading
Request your trial