Re Order 17, Rule 11 of the County Court Rules; Bannister v S.G.B. Plc and Others and other Cases
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 25 April 1997 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1997] EWCA Civ J0425-6 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 25 April 1997 |
| Docket Number | CCRTI 95/1410/G |
[1997] EWCA Civ J0425-6
In the Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal (Civil Division)
On Appeal from various County Courts
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London, WC2A 2LL
Lord Justice Saville
Lord Justice Brooke
Lord Justice Waller
CCRTI 95/1410/G
No CCRTI 95/1410/G
No CCRTI 97/0228/G
No CCRTI 96/1290/G
No CCRTI 94/0727/G
No CCRTI 95/0631/G
No CCRTI 95/1365/G
No CCRTI 95/1332/G
No CCRTI 95/0685/G
No CCRTI 96/1560/G
No CCRTI 95/0982/G
Nos CCRTI 96/1347/G
CCRTI 96/1362/G
No CCRTI 97/0258/G
No CCRTI 96/1666/G
No CCRTI 96/1216/G
No CCRTI 96/1286/G
No CCRTI 96/1577/G
No CCRTI 96/1293/G
No CCRTI 96/1558/G
No CCRTI 97/0148/G
No FC2 97/5626/G
No LTA 96/7821/G
No LTA 97/5249/G
MR TIMOTHY CLAYSON (Instructed by Messrs Myer Wolf & Manley of Hull) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR PATRICK LIMB (Instructed by Whitfield Hallam of Dewsbury) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR TOBY WYNN (Instructed by Messrs Crutes of Jesmond) appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Appellants
MR BRUCE McINTYRE (Instructed by Messrs Allan Henderson Beecham of Newcastle upon Tyne) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR GEOFFREY MOTT (Instructed by Messrs Jones of Ealing, London W5) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant/Appellant
MR MICHAEL BUCKPITT (Instructed by Messrs Brettherton Price Elgoods of Cheltenham) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR M JACKSON (Instructed by Messrs Budd Martin Burrett of Chelmsford) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR N STANTON (Instructed by Messrs Coleman & Tilley of Surbiton, Surrey) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR C PAYTON (Instructed by Messrs Sohal & Co of London W3) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff/Appellant
MR S WHEATLEY (Instructed by Messrs Vizards of London WC1) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR JOHN LOFTHOUSE (Instructed by Messrs Bolitho Way of Portsmouth) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR PAUL McCORMICK (Instructed by Anderton & Co of Portsmouth, Hampshire) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR MARK TURNER (Instructed by Messrs Daniels of Macclesfield) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR SIMON HOLDER (Instructed by Messrs Paul Rooney & Co of Liverpool) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR EDWIN GLASGOW QC and MR NEIL THOMPSON (Instructed by Messrs Tinsdills of Hanley) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR DAVID STOCKDALE QC (Instructed by Grindleys of Stoke on Trent) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR R DENYER QC and MR G EDWARDS (Instructed by Messrs Warner Goodman & Streat of Fareham) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR D MARSHALL (Instructed by Messrs Paris Smith & Randall of Southampton) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR A WEITZMAN (Instructed by Messrs Barrett & Thompson of Slough) appeared on behalf of the First and Second Defendants/Appellants
MR M A HUTCHINGS (Instructed by Messrs Clarks of Reading) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MISS FIONA BARTON (Instructed by Messrs Eversheds of Norwich) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant/Appellant
MR JAMIE de BURGOS (Instructed by Messrs Gareth Woodfine & Partners of Bedford) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MISS FIONA BARTON (Instructed by Messrs Heald Nickinson of Milton Keynes) appeared on behalf of the Second Defendant/Appellant
MR JAMIE de BURGOS (Instructed by Messrs Eversheds of Norwich) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR G SELF (Instructed by Messrs Paris Smith & Randall of Southampton) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR R EGLETON (Instructed by Messrs Keeping & Co of Alton, Hampshire) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR ALAN SAGGERSON (Instructed by Messrs Mills & Reeve of Cambridge—London Agents, Sharpe Pritchard of London W1) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR EDWIN GLASGOW QC and MR S GRODZINSKI (Instructed by Messrs Norrie Waite & Co of Sheffield—London Agents, Messrs Bates & Partners of Southend) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR MARK Le BROCQ (Instructed by Messrs Fox Hayes of Leeds) appeared on behalf of Second Defendant/Appellant
MR GEOFFREY PASS (Instructed by Messrs Slater Healis of Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR RODERICK NOBLE (Instructed by Messrs Shoosmith & Harrison of Northampton) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Appellant
MR MICHAEL P YELTON (Instructed by Leeds Day of St Ives) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR JOHN DENNISS (Instructed by Messrs Plumridge & Howell of Hove) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR STEPHEN SHAW (Instructed by Messrs Bunkers of Hove) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR GAURANG NAIK (Instructed by Messrs Thompsons of Gants Hill) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR JAMES LAUGHLAND (Instructed by Messrs Kennedys of Brentwood) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR STEPHEN BOYD (Instructed by Messrs Louis Glatt & Co of London W1) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Appellant
MR IAN CROXFORD QC and MR RICHARD GROUND (Instructed by Messrs S D Rosser & co of Willesden, London) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR J BELL (Instructed by Messrs Greenwoods of London WC1) appeared on behalf of the First Defendant/Appellant
MR S EDWARDS (Instructed by Rollingtons of London WC2) appeared on behalf of the Plaintiff/Respondent
MR STEPHEN BOYD (Instructed by Messrs Lorris Glatt & Co of London W1) appeared on behalf of Plaintiff/Applicant
MR IAN CROXFORD QC and MR RICHARD GROUND (Instructed by Messrs S D Rosser & Co of Willesden, London) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Respondent
MR MONTAGUE PALFREY (Instructed by Messrs Feldman Nicholls & Co of London W4) appeared on behalf of the Defendants/Applicants
The Respondent appeared in person
MR PAUL HIGGINS (Instructed by Peter Rickson & Partners of Manchester) appeared on behalf of the Defendant/Applicant
and 19 Other Appeals and Applications Whose Names Appear in Schedule 1 to This Judgment.
The County Court Rules: Order 17 Rule 11
Preface
Saville LJ: This is the judgment of the court to which all three members of the court have contributed equally. As we will explain, we have chosen these 19 appeals and two applications out of more than a hundred appeals and applications which were awaiting disposal by the court in March of this year, in order to give us the opportunity of dealing with a very large number of unresolved issues on the proper interpretation of Order 17 Rule 11 of the County Court Rules. We are also using the occasion to restate the existing law on this topic in a single judgment. Such is the scale of the difficulties that have been confronting the lower courts that we have asked that a copy of this judgment should be sent immediately to every county court in England and Wales (for distribution to the judges who sit at that court), as well as to all the parties in all the appeals and applications awaiting decisions by this court. The text of this judgment is to be made available immediately on FELIX, the judges' electronic bulletin board and on the Internet (website http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/lcdhome.htm). If this country was in the same happy position as Australia, where the administration of the law is benefiting greatly from the pioneering enterprise of the Australasian Legal Information Institute (AUSTLII), we would have been able to make this judgment immediately available in a very convenient electronic form to every judge and practitioner in the country without the burdensome costs that the distribution of large numbers of hard copies of the judgment will necessarily impose on public funds.
In this judgment we will be setting out the principles of law to be applied to problems arising under Order 17 Rule 11 in the main text of the judgment. In Schedule 1 we will apply these principles to the twenty-one cases we have to decide. Schedule 2 contains the current text of the Rule, and Schedule 3 contains a list of the cases on which we have drawn while preparing this judgment, with appropriate citations. In the interests of brevity we will be referring to these cases without citations, and often by way of a convenient shorthand in the main text of the judgment.
Introduction
The title to Order 17 Rule 11 of the County Court Rules is "Automatic Directions." The Rule sets out the steps which are to be taken to progress an action to trial. It also contains a sanction. The action will be automatically struck out if there is a failure to apply for a day for the hearing within the time allowed. The object of the Rule is to set out the steps that must be taken within a prescribed timetable so that actions can progress to trial without undue delay or the need to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Moguntia-Est Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte Ltd
...meant that any action which the plaintiffs might bring against the defendants would be fatally flawed: at [30]. Bannister v SGB plc [1998] 1 WLR 1123; [1997] 4 All ER 129 (folld) Rastin v British Steel plc [1994] 1 WLR 732; [1994] 2 All ER 641 (folld) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev ......
-
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong and Others
...for the purposes of automatic directions was a mistaken one. 36 Similarly, in a later decision of that court, Bannister v SGB plc [1997] 4 All ER 129 (at paras 4.1 and 4.2), it was 4.1 The new automatic directions start to run after pleadings are deemed to be closed (r 11(3): ‘the trigger d......
-
Greig Middleton & Company Ltd v Denderowicz (No 2)
... ... Court of Appeal Before Lord Justice Saville, Lord ... judge was automatic without the need for an order to that effect. The Court of Appeal so stated in ... a decision of Judge Cartlidge at Gateshead County Court on March 14, 1996, upholding the ruling of ... of calculating the trigger date: see Bannister v SGB plcTLR (The Times May 2, 1997)) meant that ... fell outside the provisions of Order 17, rule 11 since rule 11(1)(o) excepted "an action to ... In other words, in such cases the reference to arbitration ... ...
-
Limb v Union Jack Removals Ltd and Another ; McGivern v Brown ; Partington v Turners Bakery ; Pyne-Edwards v Moore Large and Company Ltd ; Smith v Brothers of Charity Services Ltd ; Tomkins v Griffiths
...case-management principles which gave birth to the ill-starred Order 17 Rule 11 of the same Rules (for which see Bannister v SGB plc [1997] 4 All ER 129). 4 When the County Court Rules were redrafted in 1981 the scope of the default summons was widened to include unliquidated claims for the......
-
The Bowman Review of the Court of Appeal
...not adjudicatory link between the Court of Appeal, the CountyCourts and in-house training scheme of the Judicial Studies Board.126 [1997] 4 All ER 129. It is also on the Internet at http://www.open.gov.uk/lcd/bann797.htm.7 [1997] 4 All ER 181 but see the Internet version at http://www.open.......
-
Civil Procedure
...Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte Ltd[2003] 4 SLR 429, Judith Prakash J considered the English guidelines set out in Bannister v SGB plc[1997] 4 All ER 129 and concluded (at [20]) that they could be applied to O 21 r 2(8) subject to the modification of the first guideline. In the English sit......
-
AUTOMATIC DISCONTINUANCE UNDER ORDER 21 RULE 2 — FIRST DORMANT, THEN DEAD…
...21 Rule 2(6B) stales clearly that an application to extend the year-long period can only be made before the year-long period is up. 37 [1997] 4 All ER 129. 38 [1994] 2 All ER 641. 39 [1993] 2 SLR 232. 40 [1997] 2 SLR 752. 41 A similar example was cited in Wee Siew Noi, supra, to illustrate ......