Purcell Meats (Scotland) Ltd v Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Beldam,Henry,Swinton Thomas L JJ |
| Judgment Date | 16 May 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 16 May 1997 |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Beldam, Lord Justice Henry and Lord Justice Swinton Thomas
Practice - delay not prejudicial - claims not be dismissed
A judge had erred in law in dismissing both a plaintiffs' claim and a defendants' counterclaim, on the apparent conclusion that, where parties had acted with reasonable expedition, the court was obliged to hear the case, whatever difficulties as to proof occurred, but could decline that task where the parties to the litigation had been guilty of inordinate and inexcusable delay, even when that delay had not caused the difficulties before the court.
Having found that the delay was not causative of serious prejudice, nor of the impossibility of a fair trial of the action, the judge was bound by Birkett v JamesELR ([1978] AC 297, 318F-G) and should not have dismissed the claims.
The Court of Appeal so held in allowing an appeal by the defendants, the Intervention Board for Agricultural Produce, against the order of Mr Recorder Kallipetis, QC, sitting as an Official Referee, on January 8, 1996, dismissing the claim of the second plaintiffs, Ulster Meats Ltd, for £1.6 million and the counterclaim of the defendants for £2.6 million, in respect of transactions governed by the common agricultural policy of the European Community.
Mr Kenneth Parker, QC and Mr Rhodri Thomson for the defendants; Mr Brian Leveson, QC and Mr Nicholas Green for Ulster Meats.
LORD JUSTICE HENRY said that the defendants were the statutory body responsible for the recovery of sums due to the European Community, either because large sums were received from the Community or because the plaintiffs failed to make payments they should have made. The liabilities alleged had arisen between 1984 and 1986.
The judge had said: "I conclude therefore that although Ulster Meats may be prejudiced at trial because of the lack of documents and witnesses, they were in just as bad a position in July 1991 when the period of relevant delay for this argument commenced, and I do not find that their position has been materially affected by the delay of (the defendants), but if anything by their own delay and neglect."
Mr Parker correctly pointed out that the logic of the judge's stated position was that where parties had acted with reasonable expedition, the court was obliged to hear the case, whatever...
To continue reading
Request your trial