header-logo header-logo

29 April 2020
Issue: 7884 / Categories: Case law , In Court , Judicial line
printer mail-detail

Judicial line: 29 April 2020

Pockets to be emptied fast

Q CPR3.7A to 3.7AA deals with strike out for non-payment of a prescribed fee. They allow for reinstatement which is conditional on payment of the fee two days from the date of the court’s reinstatement order where the defaulting party was present or represented at the hearing. Does ‘two days from the date of the order’ mean two days from the hearing date, the date the order bears as typed by the court clerk, the date designated by the judge when formulating the order, the date the order was posted or the date the order was deemed served?

A It means two days from the date of the hearing, when the defaulting party was present or represented and so was aware of the outcome. The rule draws a distinction between that situation and the situation where there was no presence or representation. In the latter case, provision is made for time to run from the date of service of the reinstatement order.


Truth not to hurt

Q

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll