19 October 2012
Tinkler and another v Elliott [2012] EWCA Civ 1289, [2012] All ER (D) 94 (Oct)
The authorities supported the propositions that: (i) promptness was a mandatory requirement under CPR 39.3; (ii) it required the applicant to act “with all reasonable celerity in the circumstances”; (iii) only if the mandatory requirements were satisfied did the court have a discretion which was somewhat narrow; and (iv) the court had a reviewing, as opposed to a rehearing, function and could only interfere if satisfied that the judge below had been wrong.
